Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ap1i+
From: ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Natural Paradox
Message-ID: <0XvA3xy00Xoj82iV53@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 89 21:47:41 GMT
References: <1706@tank.uchicago.edu> <9526@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <kXuo9-y00V4=88uEVm@andrew.cmu.edu>,
	<2053@buengc.BU.EDU>
Organization: Class of '92, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 12
In-Reply-To: <2053@buengc.BU.EDU>

/>/ 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?

No. Clarify?

--Z