kissell@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (08/17/84)
(Ohm money put me home!) >>> The concept of proof depends upon the concepts of cause and effect, among >>> other things. Norm Andrews >> This is simply not true. The notion of logical proof involves implication >> relationships between discrete statements in discourse. This is an agreed >> upon rule of the game. Causality assumes implication relationships between >> discrete events in the world. The universe may or may not argue like a >> philosopher, and it is not always clear what constitutes a "discrete" event. Baba ROM DOS Now, John Williams weighs in with: > A discrete event is an individual sample. A change that has taken > place within defined time boundaries. The concept of proof implies an > accurate model in which you define the conditions, and are able to observe > the results. Logical proof is performed only in a logical system. Cause and > effect can be observed in this system. OK, you want a definition of "proof"? (Where's that damned notebook?) A proof consists of a series P of formulae or statements, ending with some conclusion C, such that for each statement S in P, S is either drawn from a list of axioms, A, or there exists a statement R such that both R and R => S appear above S in P. (R => S is a statement of logical implication.) Note that there is NO TIME DOMAIN present here, only structural organization. Thus I cannot see how you find cause and effect in the system. I couldn't see what the rest of the article had to do with what Baba was saying. Kevin D. Kissell Fairchild Research Center Advanced Processor Development uucp: {ihnp4 decvax}!decwrl!\ >flairvax!kissell {ucbvax sdcrdcf}!hplabs!/ "Any closing epigram, regardless of truth or wit, grows galling after a number of repetitions"