hal@finney.org wrote:
> I still think it is useful to think of Euclidean geometry minus the
> parallel postulate to gain insight into these issues. No TM is ever
> going to prove the PP starting with this trucated axiom base. But I
> don't think we would say that the PP's truth is the consequence of an
> infinite number of independent geometrical facts; at least, no more so
> than any other axiom.
Well, that does sound like a funny way of putting it, but it may be
right. The PP could just be one of those cosmic coincidences. :)
-Dan, who has no counterexamples to PP or GC, but is almost positive
he'll think of one *any day now*
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:44 MDT