<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The Provability of Consistency · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1902.07404/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1902.07404/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The Provability of Consistency — mentioned by burakemir</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25604289</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1902.07404:25604289</guid><pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2021 16:19:29 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Let me try to reconstruct what has been said. You seem to be reacting to points different from the one I tried to make. bjornsing: All of mathematics can in principle be derived from ZFC. morelisp: not all, there are independent statements. Mathematics is beyond formalization. bjornsing: like what? are you saying that formalization is futile? or not? me: CH is an example. formalizing is not futile, but affected by incompleteness theorems in the sense that all those proof assistants, when used for developing some theory, will require something else to prove the consistency of that theory.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1902.07404/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.LO</category></item></channel></rss>
