[FOM] Re: Shapiro on natural and formal languages

Roger B Jones rbj01 at rbjones.com
Wed Dec 1 04:13:26 EST 2004

On Tuesday 30 November 2004  7:54 am, Harvey Friedman wrote:


> However, I claim that it is sometimes possible, with much more
> work, to show that the definitions are not only appropriate,
> but correct.
> If this is done properly, it should make the informal,
> intuitive proof much much closer to a formally correct proof
> than is usual.

But what does it mean to say that the definitions are correct?

To verify correctness formally you would need a some other
formal definition against which to prove their correctness,
and we have a problem of regress.

Roger Jones

More information about the FOM mailing list