Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!grad2.cis.upenn.edu!aaron
From: aaron@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Aaron Watters)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Academic legend (was Re: Answers...)
Message-ID: <19983@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 90 12:54:14 GMT
References: <20433@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <2072@rex.cs.tulane.edu>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: aaron@grad2.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Aaron Watters)
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 11

In article <2072@rex.cs.tulane.edu> fs@rex.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes:
>A notation is but a language, and a proof theory
>merely a way of verifying one's hypotheses.
>The models are what make a theory interesting.

I like the spirit, but I have to object that `proof theories' are
seldom used at all (except for trivial things like type checking
and getting students to drop your class on symbolic logic).  Proof
theories are primarily an abstract object of mathematical discussion
and not a used mathematical technique.
  -aaron