Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 18, 2011 at 19:33 vote accept Mohamed Alaa El Behairy
Feb 8, 2010 at 2:45 answer added Neil Fitzgerald timeline score: 4
Feb 8, 2010 at 0:08 comment added François G. Dorais @Charles: Any complete proof theory for second-order logic is necessarily (1) infinitary, since compactness fails for second-order logic, and (2) almost indescribable, so as to avoid diagonalization arguments similar to Gödel's Theorem. The requirements are so bad that it is often claimed that there is no such system, though this claim is technically wrong without some implicit assumptions on what constitutes a deductive system. A trivial complete deduction system is the semantic consequence relation itself, but that doesn't help much...
Feb 7, 2010 at 23:37 comment added aorq @François G. Dorais: Can you provide some more detail for your comment, either in another comment or in an answer? Specifically, can you describe the options as to what I can give up and get in exchange? Thanks in advance. Incidentally, I appreciate your contributions to this site very much.
Feb 7, 2010 at 23:23 answer added Ulrik Buchholtz timeline score: 8
Feb 7, 2010 at 15:49 comment added François G. Dorais For a clear answer, you would need to explain your 'suitable proof system' or, at least, your requirements for 'suitable'. Indeed, one of the principal difficulties with second-order logic is that every proof system is unsuitable in one way or another. The answer to your question depends on what you're willing to give up for completeness.
Feb 7, 2010 at 15:32 comment added Mohamed Alaa El Behairy To clarify: I am asking about syntactic completeness in the sense that there exists a proof for every true statment, using a suitable proof system.
Feb 7, 2010 at 15:11 answer added Joel David Hamkins timeline score: 3
Feb 7, 2010 at 14:49 history asked Mohamed Alaa El Behairy CC BY-SA 2.5