Timeline for Natural constructions (not depending on parameters) [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:19 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 19, 2014 at 16:11 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Feb 23, 2014 at 18:26 | |||||
| Feb 19, 2014 at 1:34 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Also, your question would benefit from a more formal treatment of definability: what is the formal language? What is the structure in which the definitions are interpreted? | |
| Feb 19, 2014 at 1:34 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Hans, one idea for progress might be to articulate the differences between your somewhat vague parameter concept and the usual analysis of parameters in definitions that one finds (extensively) in first-order logic and model theory. The notions do not coincide, since in most cases one doesn't actually need the natural number parameter $k$ in the kinds of cases you are looking at, since one can build $k$ into the definition without talking explicitly about $k$. But the analysis of when and which parameters are needed for certain kinds of definability notions is highly developed. | |
| Feb 19, 2014 at 0:41 | history | closed |
Andy Putman Stefan Kohl♦ Andrey Rekalo Andrés E. Caicedo Qiaochu Yuan |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Feb 18, 2014 at 23:22 | history | edited | Andrés E. Caicedo |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 18, 2014 at 23:10 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Hans: I'd prefer to just take back the "very" if it makes you feel better. But briefly, I think the "very" means: two people could give two reasonable formulations which have absolutely nothing in common. So answering the question once is not necessarily any progress to a "real answer". | |
| Feb 18, 2014 at 23:05 | history | edited | Hans-Peter Stricker |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 18, 2014 at 23:05 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | @Pete: I don't want anyone to create some mathematics - I would be perfectly happy with a reference. | |
| Feb 18, 2014 at 22:57 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | @Pete: I will do my best to digest this "stony" answer which I really do appreciate. (What I don't understand immediately: Why you consider my idea very soft. Soft - OK. But very soft?) | |
| Feb 18, 2014 at 22:51 | comment | added | Andy Putman | I think that Pete's comment describes the issues with this question perfectly. And I'm sorry if you feel like we demand patience here, but that is the generally agreed upon policy. If you don't get a good answer on math.se, you should think about how to improve your question to get one rather than just copying it here. | |
| Feb 18, 2014 at 22:51 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Hans: I have not voted to close, but your question feels a bit "stone soup-y" to me. You are pitching out a very soft idea and asking whether and how it can be mathematically formalized. Like almost every very soft idea: certainly, yes it can be mathematically formalized, in several different ways. Whether or which of these formalizations will be preferable to you is hard to know in advance, so your are essentially asking for people to create some mathematics until you say you like it. This site is designed for more focused questions than that. | |
| Feb 18, 2014 at 22:46 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | @Andy: And please give me a slight hint: Is my question inappropriate because it is trivial or because it is nonsensical? (I cannot guess from the close votes, but maybe I would learn something from this information.) | |
| Feb 18, 2014 at 22:40 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | @Andy: You are demanding a lot of patience. Experience taught me that when you don't get an answer at MSE - or even a comment - after a couple of hours, you will only get one by sheer accident. | |
| Feb 18, 2014 at 20:56 | answer | added | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 18, 2014 at 20:54 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 19, 2014 at 0:45 | |||||
| Feb 18, 2014 at 20:38 | comment | added | Andy Putman | I'm not sure this is an appropriate question for MO, but even if it is you only waited 24 hours to get an answer on math.SE. You should wait at least a couple of weeks. | |
| Feb 18, 2014 at 19:53 | history | edited | Hans-Peter Stricker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 18, 2014 at 19:48 | history | edited | Hans-Peter Stricker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2014 at 18:51 | history | edited | Hans-Peter Stricker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 175 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2014 at 18:23 | history | asked | Hans-Peter Stricker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |