[FOM] Inconsistency of P

[Monroe Eskew]

I was not claiming "K(n)<c" is true in my example.  I thought you were
inferring your claim about the failure of Sigma_1-completeness from
the proposition that the Chaitin machine for T will give a witness to
K(n)<c.  I showed this is not the case because the Chaitin machine is
programmed to find the *first* witness in T, not S.

Best,
Monroe


On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Panu Raatikainen
<panu.raatikainen at helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>
> "K(n)<c" is a Sigma_1 sentence.
>
> If "K(n)<c" is true, and S is Sigma_1 complete, then S proves "K(n)<c".
> Period.
>
> That is what Sigma_1 completeness is.
>
>
> I am afraid I fail to see how any involved Chaitin machine considerations
> (or whatever) could change that...
>
> Best
>
> Panu
>
>
>
> --
> Panu Raatikainen
>
> Ph.D., University Lecturer
> Docent in Theoretical Philosophy
>
> Theoretical Philosophy
> Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies
> P.O. Box 24  (Unioninkatu 38 A)
> FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
> Finland
>
> E-mail: panu.raatikainen at helsinki.fi
>
> http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/praatika/
>
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
>