At first I thought he meant P_D(s) is defined to be 0 if there is a proof in F of s implies false of length ⇐ D, and 1⁄2 otherwise, but then he says P_D(s) == 1 later for some s, so that’s not right.
At first I thought he meant P_D(s) is defined to be 0 if there is a proof in F of s implies false of length ⇐ D, and 1⁄2 otherwise, but then he says P_D(s) == 1 later for some s, so that’s not right.