Timeline for Another adjoint pair: Definable sets and set-builder formulas
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Oct 30, 2013 at 1:27 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed logical error with "not"
|
| Oct 29, 2013 at 23:43 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Well, you presented a naive account, and my main point is that the naive account is flawed. We can't really take that kind of talk about definability at face value. If you had meant something sophisticated, then you should explain more fully what in fact you did mean. But notice that the argument of my post shows that there is no nontrivial system that is able to formalize these notions for that system itself. And so you will have a hard time of it, unless you adopt one of the methods for getting around the problem. In that case, you should say so explicitly what it is that you mean. | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 23:36 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | Quick reply: I did not argue for these concepts to be expressible in (first-order) set theory. I am aware they are not. | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 23:29 | history | answered | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |