**Next message:**Jim Fehlinger: "Re: "analog computer" = useless hypothesis?"**Previous message:**Lee Corbin: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Maybe in reply to:**GBurch1@aol.com: "MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Next in thread:**hal@finney.org: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In a message dated 4/2/01 5:15:43 PM, lcorbin@ricochet.net writes:

*> But I agree with you that some of the
*

*>claims in the science article were hyped, and thanks
*

*>for reminding people like me to approach even things
*

*>others know a lot better with a bit of skepticism.
*

Sad, but true; Nature and Science publish lots of papers with excellent

science but outrageous claims for consequences, relevance, and meaning

in the discussion. Proving most statements can be neither proved nor

disproved doesn't "blow holes" in mathematics. It just proves most of the

time you need you may need experimental mathematics. Big deal.

Even then, you have 2 additional questions: how often are *interesting*

claims unsolvable, and how well can you approximate the truth with

genuine proof. For example, somebody proved some time ago that there

were a finite number of elementary solutions to Fermat's equation. Now

Fermat's turned out to be decidable and true; but I'd be pretty happy

with a proof that Goldbach's conjecture had a finite number of exceptions.

**Next message:**Jim Fehlinger: "Re: "analog computer" = useless hypothesis?"**Previous message:**Lee Corbin: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Maybe in reply to:**GBurch1@aol.com: "MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Next in thread:**hal@finney.org: "Re: MATH/COMP/PHIL: "Omega Man""**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:44 MDT
*