Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Natural Paradox
Message-ID: <2053@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 4 Feb 89 22:10:36 GMT
References: <1706@tank.uchicago.edu> <9526@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <kXuo9-y00V4=88uEVm@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.ai
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 12

In article <kXuo9-y00V4=88uEVm@andrew.cmu.edu> ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) writes:
>/ It would be very interesting, though, to see a statement which
>/ was 'provable' yet not 'provable' that it's 'provable.'
>
>How would you know it if you saw it? If you could point at it and say "That
>statement is provable, but you can't prove it!" how would you know that the
>first part of the claim is true, without invalidating the second part?

Remember Rolle's theorem?

				--Blair
				  "Rather, Rolle's conjecture..."