Talk:Proof: Difference between revisions
→Quantifiers: new section
m (better fix) |
(→Quantifiers: new section) |
||
Line 172:
:: The "but" is that fact that Haskell allows general recursion, making the logic unsound, i.e. any theorem - including false ones - can be proven by an expression that would diverge at run-time. The given solution does not use this "feature", however.
:: This is a solution that the task should clearly allow, with the appropriate footnotes, though. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 18:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
== Quantifiers ==
The currently phrasing of this task places emphasis on "any" (pair of even natural numbers) and on "every" (use of addition between those numbers).
But the task also requires that the language implement the natural numbers so represented.
This is either a contradiction (since every language can only implement a finite set of distinct numbers and there are an infinite number of "Natural Numbers") or a new use of the term "Natural Number" which I am not familiar with (in which case the required definition should be included in the task description).
--[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||