Subject: (unknown)
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.frogs
Date: 2007-10-15 08:49:44 GMT (29 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours and 45 minutes ago)
<owner-frogs@...> Subject: Re: [Frogs] Puzzling "premisse" Cc: "Jean-Luc Delatre (Kevembuangga)" <jld@...>, Frogs@... In-Reply-To: <20071013195431.0C41143173@...> References: <loom.20071011T155345-862@...> <20071013195431.0C41143173@...> Sender: owner-frogs@... Precedence: bulk List-Post: Frogs@... List-Page: <http://frogs.prooftheory.org> Dear Jean-Luc, you have received some answers that might seem impatient to you, or even rude. Maybe I can clarify. As I said, and as Alessio *ironically* denied, the problem that the commonly used definition of "proof" is not nearly abstract enough to capture the intuitive notion of proof is well-known. The entire community is quite aware of it. What you did is the equivalent of posting a message to the complexity theory mailing list and complaining that their models of computation are clearly inadequate since they can't even establish P versus NP. You would be absolutely right. But that's not the point. I don't think the answers you would receive would be as polite as they have been on our list. The very fact that you think that you need to remind us of that problem makes it hard for us to take you seriously. Please understand. -Kai