Fuck school.

]]>But obviously, you don’t have to follow the same path as the Tractatus; anyway, as a non-mathematician, when I red that “real linguistic fake mathematics” demonstration I felt like dying. It took me weeks to understand that stuff. ]]>

I very much agree with you as of now. Well as of now date and datetime and time types are not supported in win 8 and i think still there are some works to be done from W3C standards for the same. May be once that is done. it might be supported in WIn 8 apps too.

PS: The worst part is the app developed for Windows 8 using html 5 and javascript will not work in Windows 8 Phone without using some tools like phonegap…etc.

Thanks

Goutham

http://www.ams.org/notices/200610/fea-feferman.pdf

I find the amount of extra strength that can be added in this way remarkable.

]]>I don’t have a good understanding of this subject, but I know that you run into some curios things when you attempt to build extensions for ordinals beyond omega. Thing is, you no longer have a unique canonical enumeration of your set of axioms, and need to choose a particular ordinal notation in order to define your procedure of proof. Apparently, the “logical content” of the theory will strongly depend on the choice of enumeration. What the theory can and cannot prove will not only depend on its axiom set, but also on the procedure of resolving that set. So the very notion of proof becomes kind of relative. I believe that by choosing a “proof machine” (ordinal notation) you can make you theory able to prove pretty much any arithmetic truth.

Can’t we then express the proof predicate in the theory, and make the theory prove own consistency? My understanding is yes, that’s what Feferman did in his “Arithmetization of metamathematics in a general setting”. Problem is, when we formalize a proof predicate of such power, we can no longer satisfy all Hilbert-Bernays conditions. Since those conditions are necessary for Goedel’s Second theorem, that theorem is not violated. ]]>

I’m curious to what extent it would be interesting to extend the PA axiom scheme by adding more and more Godel sentences for successive theories. I guess you can do it for any recursive order type, but would the resulting systems be interesting? ie could one prove anything extra of interest that’s not provable in PA? Eg, the strengthened finite Ramsey Theorem (which implies Con(PA)). My guess is ‘no’.

]]>I was very confused about C#+XAML or CSS+HTML(5)+JS in windows 8

After a couples of day trying different samples projects

WinRT is what MS is pushing

I better stick with JQuery y JQuary UI

Thanks

Sergio ]]>

Article What were doing Putin and Medvedev when their rating were falling?: http://en.kapital-rus.ru/article/322

]]>They’ve published their own analysis too, in case you are interested http://samarcandanalytics.com/?page_id=39 , but I much disagree with their methodology.

]]>Is the data you used to make the plots available online?

Thanks!

]]>