Re: Layout syntax

Ian Zimmerman <bayard@newsguy.com>
18 Jan 2004 20:54:23 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[9 earlier articles]
Re: Layout syntax haberg@matematik.su.se (2004-01-02)
Re: Layout syntax joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2004-01-07)
Re: Layout syntax haberg@matematik.su.se (2004-01-09)
Re: Layout syntax joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2004-01-12)
Re: Layout syntax haberg@matematik.su.se (2004-01-16)
Re: Layout syntax joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2004-01-18)
Re: Layout syntax bayard@newsguy.com (Ian Zimmerman) (2004-01-18)
Re: Layout syntax haberg@matematik.su.se (2004-01-22)
Re: Layout syntax haberg@matematik.su.se (2004-01-22)
Re: Layout syntax bayard@newsguy.com (Ian Zimmerman) (2004-02-01)
Re: Layout syntax haberg@matematik.su.se (2004-02-04)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Ian Zimmerman <bayard@newsguy.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 18 Jan 2004 20:54:23 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 03-12-016 03-12-136 04-01-014 04-01-021 04-01-034 04-01-056 04-01-083
Keywords: theory
Posted-Date: 18 Jan 2004 20:54:23 EST

Hans> Computer scientists can get around this, it seems, by making
Hans> use of Gentzen sequents. But these cannot capture the full
Hans> generality of the Hilbert metamathematics.


I'll bite - wth do you mean by this? Natural deduction (with Excluded
Middle in, of course) is a completely equivalent, if radically
different, formulation of the predicate calculus; I don't know of any
reason why all of standard metamathematics, e.g. Goedel's
Incompleteness proof, could not be formulated in it.


Are we talking about the same things? I cannot be sure because of the
somewhat vague style of your posts.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.