Timeline for How much of the current logic is about syntax?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2010 at 23:24 | answer | added | Adam | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 5:56 | vote | accept | abcdxyz | ||
| Jan 14, 2010 at 0:02 | answer | added | Justin Hilburn | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 17:18 | comment | added | Harald Hanche-Olsen | @Tran Chieu Minh: Don't bother to change the title. I don't really have a better suggestion. I just wanted to find out if my understanding of what syntax is is off. (It may be coloured by too much computer programming.) | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 16:41 | comment | added | abcdxyz | I apology to those who find the comment offensive. @ Joel David Hamkins: For the resemblance between prime numbers, Turing degrees, Large cardinal, they are all object that can not be reached from below by certain operation. This resemblance is rather superficial, but I think we can argue that it seems like the latter might be just as interesting as the former. This point is, however, beside the main one. The point main point is that if Turing degrees and large cardinal has some universal characteristic and not merely artifacts of the language, they should be considered a natural maths object. | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 15:45 | comment | added | abcdxyz | @ Harald Hanche-Olsen: I don't really like the title formal proof vs model theory because I want to talk about other branches of logic as well. Do you have some suggestion? I don't know how to change it. @ Joel David Hamkins: I just heard that from a few people, I don't claim that is a universal. But it seems that even logicians are divided within themselves whether some question are correct one. See for example Solomon Feferman's "Does mathematics need new axiom?". I think you are right criticizing my remark. Their resemblance has little mathematical significance. | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 14:26 | history | edited | Harald Hanche-Olsen |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 13, 2010 at 14:25 | comment | added | Harald Hanche-Olsen | Side remark: I admit being linguistically confused by the usage of the word “syntax” here. To me, syntax is merely the question of whether formulas are well formed and how they are parsed, which is a necessary but uninteresting part of logic (in the sense that it is easily decidable). Isn't this question more about formal proofs versus model theory? True, a formal proof is an instance of syntactic manipulation, but I don't usually call it syntax for that reason. | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 13:26 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Could you explain what you mean by your last sentence? | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 12:47 | answer | added | Charles Stewart | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 9:57 | answer | added | Neel Krishnaswami | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 6:15 | history | asked | abcdxyz | CC BY-SA 2.5 |