Timeline for Theory interpreted in non-set domain of discourse may be consistent?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 2020 at 19:07 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | @MikeShulman It's great to read this from you. I was doing some research on this and still found that, unfortunately, our shared point of view here is still not "mainstream" ;). | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 1:42 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | @JDH: If it is, that's great. The book I originally learned logic from defined a structure to always be non-empty, and the question asked here (and the Wikipedia article it links to) suggest that prejudicial treatment of the empty structure still exists in some other places. If you're sure that this is now the standard view, maybe you could fix the Wikipedia article? I'm not sure enough that my own views are sufficiently "mainstream" to do it myself. (-: | |
| Feb 19, 2010 at 16:06 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | I agree completely, and I don't think there is any problem developing first order logic while allowing the empty structure. Isn't this by now the standard view? | |
| Feb 19, 2010 at 16:01 | history | answered | Mike Shulman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |