Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?

From: Torkel Franzen <torkel_at_sm.luth.se>
Date: 12 Dec 2005 17:21:26 +0100
Message-ID: <vcb4q5e8ewp.fsf_at_beta19.sm.ltu.se>

"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> writes:

> So Godel's
> stated that any recursive axiomatic system cannot be consistent and
> complete.

Not at all. There are lots of consistent and complete recursively axiomatized systems. As usual, Godel's theorem is supremely irrelevant. Received on Mon Dec 12 2005 - 17:21:26 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: vc: "Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?"
Previous message: David Cressey: "Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL"
Maybe in reply to: michael_at_preece.net: "Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?"
In reply to JOG: "Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?"
Next in thread: vc: "Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?"
Reply: vc: "Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?"
Reply: JOG: "Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?"
Reply: David Cressey: "Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message