Quibbling about definitions of "proof"

[Nathan Zook]

On Mon, 7 Aug 1995 hallam at 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