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
Is this your account?

Registered User 

Name Jaykov Foukzon
Member for 6 months
Seen Apr 22 at 21:05
Website
Location
Age
Apr
2
 comment Question on da’Costa Logic.
@Noah S. Thanks.I am asking about paraconsistent set theory with unrestricted comprehension schema.
Mar
31
 revised Question on da’Costa Logic.
deleted 2 characters in body; edited title
Mar
31
 asked Question on da’Costa Logic.
Mar
30
 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.
Mar
29
 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.
Mar
29
 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?
Mar
29
 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.
Mar
28
 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.
Mar
28
 comment Question on Godel completeness theorem
Andrej Bauer. >but "really exist" might mean "exists constructively". Well. Thus "really exist" completely depend on logic.
Mar
26
 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
Mar
26
 asked Question on Godel completeness theorem
Mar
22
 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.
Mar
17
 awarded ● Commentator
Mar
17
 comment Standard model of ZFC
Joel David Hamkins.Yes of course.
Mar
16
 comment Standard model of ZFC
I'm asking does it follow from ZFC+ there exists some model of ZFC
Mar
16
 comment Standard model of ZFC
Timothy 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.
Mar
16
 revised Standard model of ZFC
added 9 characters in body
Mar
16
 revised Standard model of ZFC
added 29 characters in body
Mar
16
 asked Standard model of ZFC
Mar
7
 awarded ● Scholar
Mar
7
 revised Reflection principles
added 29 characters in body; added 2 characters in body
Mar
6
 revised Reflection principles
added 10 characters in body
Mar
6
 revised Reflection principles
added 149 characters in body; added 2 characters in body; added 2 characters in body
Mar
6
 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?
Mar
6
 comment Reflection principles
wff being "over M" meant an wff with bounded quantifiers restrict by M.
Mar
6
 comment Reflection principles
Bew_{S}(A_M) mean that A_M is provable in S.
Mar
6
 comment Reflection principles
cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2007-October/012035.html
Mar
6
 revised Reflection principles
added 29 characters in body
Mar
6
 revised Reflection principles
added 6 characters in body
Mar
6
 asked Reflection principles
Feb
17
 awarded ● Supporter
Jan
4
 revised What are integration on fractal?
added 66 characters in body
Jan
4
 comment What are integration on fractal?
BSteinhurst.I agree. It is easy to prove that in general case this formula is wrong
Jan
3
 revised What are integration on fractal?
added 176 characters in body
Jan
3
 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/…
Jan
3
 asked What are integration on fractal?
Jan
2
 awarded ● Student
Jan
2
 asked What are Chris Mortensen number systems?