Date: Apr 6, 2013 11:03 AM
Author: namducnguyen
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 06/04/2013 8:35 AM, WM wrote:

> On 6 Apr., 16:13, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote:

>> On 06/04/2013 7:32 AM, Peter Percival wrote:

>>

>>> Nam Nguyen wrote:

>>

>>>> But if GC is undecidable in PA, there's no proof left in FOL but

>>>> _structure theoretically verifying_ the truth value of GC in

>>>> this structure.

>>

>>> If the Goldbach conjecture is undecidable in PA then it is true.

>>

>> Care to verify (prove) your claim here?

>

> Goldbach conjecture is false. <==> Counter example exists. <==>

> Counter example can be found. <==> Goldbach conjecture is decidable.

>

> The second equivalence requires to neglect reality. But in mathematics

> this is standard.

But, to start with, how would one _structure theoretically prove_ the

1st equivalence:

"Goldbach conjecture is false. <==> Counter example exists."

?

Logically:

(A _specific_ counter example exists) => (Goldbach conjecture is false).

How would one _prove_ ( i.e. _structure theoretically verify_ ) the

other-way-around?

Consider:

(P(0) -> Ex[P(x)]) <-> (Ex[P(x)] -> P(0))

Is this a logical equivalence?

--

----------------------------------------------------

There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI

----------------------------------------------------