MathOverflow will be down for maintenance for approximately 3 hours, starting Monday evening (06/24/2013) at approximately 9:00 PM Eastern time (UTC-4).

# Jaykov Foukzon

 103 Reputation 386 views

## Registered User

 Name Jaykov Foukzon Member for 6 months Seen Apr 22 at 21:05 Website Location Age
 Apr2 comment Question on da’Costa Logic.@Noah S. Thanks.I am asking about paraconsistent set theory with unrestricted comprehension schema. Mar31 revised Question on da’Costa Logic.deleted 2 characters in body; edited title Mar31 asked Question on da’Costa Logic. Mar30 comment Question on Godel completeness theorem @Henry Cohn Thanks! Statement "Consistent theory T" has a clear substantial sense and it means that on any step of the proof we cannot prove the formula 1=0. But construction of proofs is real physical process and for example, if "10 ^ {10 ^ {10000} exists" has not the same substantial sense as well as "2 exists" then and statement Con (T) obviously has not any sense. Mar29 comment Question on Godel completeness theorem > I really think that "is $T$ consistent?" and "what do symbols mean?" are unrelated.) $T$ consistent has clear substantial sense and it means that on any step of the proof we cannot prove the formula 1=0. But construction of proofs is real physical process and if "10 ^ {10 ^ {10000} exists" has not the same substantial sense as well as "2 exists" then and statement Con (T) has not any sense. Mar29 comment Question on Godel completeness theorem Well. Then explain to me that you particularly mean when tell that number $10 ^ {10 ^ {10000}}$ exist. It something real or only a symbol? Mar29 comment Question on Godel completeness theorem Noah > In particular, can you please explain what you mean by "really exists?" "Really exists" means exist as real infinite physical object or infinite physical process. For example E.Nelson in fact asserts that such object or process does not exist, i.e. РА has no any standard models. Mar28 comment Question on Godel completeness theorem > then at some level you must be rejecting infinite sets, which is fine, In it there is no necessity. Nevertheless it is possible to assume that real-life infinite sets, are not obliged to correspond to the classical logic. Mar28 comment Question on Godel completeness theorem Andrej Bauer. >but "really exist" might mean "exists constructively". Well. Thus "really exist" completely depend on logic. Mar26 comment Question on Godel completeness theorem >Let me elaborate a bit on why having computationally simple models >is relevant. It's not just that such models are "less complicated" >than standard set-theoretic constructions, as I state above; it's >that we don't even need to talk about set theory, at all, to get >them! The models in question are uniformly It agree.But nevertheless there are known mathematicians which think that such constructive process will suffer contradictions web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/warn.pdf Mar26 asked Question on Godel completeness theorem Mar22 comment Standard model of ZFC Noah S. You rave. My question is put clearly and no any relation to my statements in other places has. Moreover I never addressed to whom or with intentions to check my proofs and the more so their sketches. Mar17 awarded ● Commentator Mar17 comment Standard model of ZFC Joel David Hamkins.Yes of course. Mar16 comment Standard model of ZFCI'm asking does it follow from ZFC+ there exists some model of ZFC Mar16 comment Standard model of ZFCTimothy Chow >What you're asking is, as long as there exists some model of ZFC, does it follow that no models are standard? Yes of course. Mar16 revised Standard model of ZFCadded 9 characters in body Mar16 revised Standard model of ZFCadded 29 characters in body Mar16 asked Standard model of ZFC Mar7 awarded ● Scholar Mar7 revised Reflection principles added 29 characters in body; added 2 characters in body Mar6 revised Reflection principles added 10 characters in body Mar6 revised Reflection principles added 149 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; added 2 characters in body Mar6 comment Reflection principles jdh.hamkins.org I asking also for an explanation of the paradox in the link cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2007-October/012035.html of the case S=ZFC+ omega-model? Mar6 comment Reflection principles wff being "over M" meant an wff with bounded quantifiers restrict by M. Mar6 comment Reflection principles Bew_{S}(A_M) mean that A_M is provable in S. Mar6 comment Reflection principles cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2007-October/012035.html Mar6 revised Reflection principles added 29 characters in body Mar6 revised Reflection principles added 6 characters in body Mar6 asked Reflection principles Feb17 awarded ● Supporter Jan4 revised What are integration on fractal?added 66 characters in body Jan4 comment What are integration on fractal?BSteinhurst.I agree. It is easy to prove that in general case this formula is wrong Jan3 revised What are integration on fractal?added 176 characters in body Jan3 comment What are integration on fractal?Who can in details explain the proof of the formula (2.12) given here: J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 20 (1987) 3861-3875. ru.scribd.com/doc/118425928/… Jan3 asked What are integration on fractal? Jan2 awarded ● Student Jan2 asked What are Chris Mortensen number systems?