>>13836779An actual theorem prover is impossible. It assumes the science which we base the technology that we build such a theorem prover with is flawless. But science isn't flowless due to the problem of induction. Thereofre, building a theorem prover is impossible.
>>13836787What if you miswrite something? What if you perform an erroneous logical deduction?
>>13836793Indeed, the limits of knowledge are staggeringly bounded.
>>13836820How would we know that most big mistakes are caught early when we don't know the quantity of big mistakes that aren't caught? At most we can infer that from the quantity of big mistakes found, most have been caught early (and is even this true? What is considered early?)
>>13836828How do you know your double checking doesn't contain errors? You would need a double check for the double check. But this double check would also need a double check, etc. Meaning nothing would ever be checked and proven in the end.
>>13836862Best post in thread so far.
