🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov15.191744.17481@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>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.

No, I think it might answer it from a realist standpoint, but I'm
having trouble chasing quantifiers around in my head; I can't tell
without sitting down and thinking about it, and I have things to do...
I was hoping that someone would know the answer.


>
>>-- 
>>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."


-- 
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