Timeline for Second-order term in first-order logic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 23, 2012 at 0:29 | vote | accept | kate_r | ||
| Aug 22, 2012 at 23:18 | comment | added | Kaveh | A related question on MSE: math.stackexchange.com/questions/23799/… | |
| Aug 22, 2012 at 18:12 | answer | added | Carl Mummert | timeline score: 22 | |
| Aug 22, 2012 at 16:20 | history | edited | Andrej Bauer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2012 at 16:15 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | Please don't close the question. The question is a symptom of logicians' always preferring single-sorted theories over multi-sorted ones. So everyone ends up thinking that functions must necessarily involve second-order logic, which is false. | |
| Aug 22, 2012 at 16:13 | answer | added | Andrej Bauer | timeline score: 14 | |
| Aug 22, 2012 at 15:27 | comment | added | Carl Mummert | There is no important syntactic difference between second-order and first-order logic. Any syntax that works in second-order logic would work equally well in a suitable first-order logic. However, I agree this question is better suited for math.stackexchange.org. If you can ask it there, I will write a longer answer. | |
| Aug 22, 2012 at 14:55 | history | edited | kate_r | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 239 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2012 at 14:01 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | No . | |
| Aug 22, 2012 at 13:40 | history | asked | kate_r | CC BY-SA 3.0 |