Re: Proof of Completeness of Algebraic Properties of Relational Lattice
Date: 21 May 2006 16:57:15 -0700
Message-ID: <1148255835.605352.259730_at_u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
> > Or more accurately/practically, how does one verify that a proof is correct?
>
> Absolute knowledge of truth is not part of the human condition.
So, are you saying we have no reference to judge by, whether a proof is correct?
> However, we have many things we can do to increase our confidence of a particular idea. A proof is a good first step. The more formal the proof, the better our confidence. (My proof here is not particularly formal.) Also good is publishing a proof so that it's in front of many eyes; the more people that see it, the more chances there are that flaws will be spotted. A single flaw is enough to invalidate a proof.
But what good is the definition of define, if it uses define to define it? Proofs that God exist are flaw-less (according to those providing the proof). The bible is published for many eyes and many can't find a flaw in it.
Are they really proofs or just self-consistent, self-supporting, self-confirming systems? Received on Mon May 22 2006 - 01:57:15 CEST