Re: Quibbling about definitions of "proof"

On Mon, 7 Aug 1995 hallam@w3.org wrote:

The requirement for "prooving" a program is thus significantly less onerous than asserted. It is not necessary to provide a trancendental proof, merely to establish consistency with respect to a commonly accepted set of axioms.

Phill Hallam-Baker

Is THAT all? But I didn't know we could establish consistency of these commonly accepted axioms with THEMSELVES! (By commonly accepted, I mean ZF. I'll even the choice & continuum hypotheses out.) Nathan