Granted - i was being careless. On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Torkel Franzen wrote: > > >The (sic) Rosser sentence says ``there is a proof of me > >s.t. no proof with lower gnumber is a proof of not-me''. > > Not quite right - rather, "for every x, if x is a proof of me, then > there is a proof < x of not-me". >