Peter Percival wrote: > 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 am so sorry. I thought I was replying to Nam.
-- I think I am an Elephant, Behind another Elephant Behind /another/ Elephant who isn't really there.... A.A. Milne