🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov15.220359.21971@guinness.idbsu.edu>
holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:

>In article <1992Nov14.141234.26280@email.tuwien.ac.at>
>zach@csdec1.tuwien.ac.at writes:

>>In article <1992Nov12.204959.17389@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>>I offer Post's problem as a counterexample.  Also, it doesn't seem
>>>that there could be a solution for "P =? NP" that would render the
>>>problem silly in retrospect.

RZ:
>>Oh yes: Prove P=NP is independent of ZFC. It actuall HAS
>>been shown independent in some weak arithmetics.

Funny, I would have thought independence to be indicative of
foundational profundity, rather than triviality.

>>-- 
>>Richard Zach                         Technische Universitaet Wien
>>[zach@csdec1.tuwien.ac.at]     Abteilung fuer Formale Logik 185.2

RH:
>Wouldn't that actually answer the question?

Only from the standpoint of a formalist.

>-- 
>The opinions expressed		     --Sincerely,
>above are not the "official"	     M. Randall Holmes
>opinions of any person		     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
>or institution.			     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."