Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > >> There are proposition such that neither P nor ¬P is a theorem, and >> similary there are propositions such that models exist in which P is >> true and other models in which ¬P is true. > > Your wording here perplexing -- "similarly"? -- since it is a > mathematical theorem that P is undecidable in a theory T iff there is a > model of T in which P is false and a model of T in which it is false. > > As a general doctrince, the idea that P is neither true nor false if P > is independent of ZFC is merely silly. Surely you don't mean to suggest > that for instance "ZFC is inconsistent" is neither true nor false?
You seemed to have switched from a technical sense of true (true in a model) to an informal one. Whether that is a silly attempt at trickery on your behalf or a manifestation of your ignorance is hard to tell. So what are you: devious or dim?
-- I think I am an Elephant, Behind another Elephant Behind /another/ Elephant who isn't really there.... A.A. Milne