Timeline for Where's the notion of interpretation (model) originally introduced?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8, 2010 at 15:54 | vote | accept | Matt | ||
| Mar 8, 2010 at 13:05 | vote | accept | Matt | ||
| Mar 8, 2010 at 13:05 | |||||
| Mar 8, 2010 at 2:35 | history | edited | John Goodrick | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Tried fixing the LaTeX formulas again (why are they not displaying correctly?)
|
| Mar 8, 2010 at 2:23 | history | edited | John Goodrick | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Added a new discussion above my old answer (but kept my original answer)
|
| Mar 8, 2010 at 0:54 | comment | added | John Goodrick | OK, I see what you're getting at: there must have been some sort of pre-Tarskian notion of semantics. I'm looking at my copy of Jean van Heijenoort's *From Frege to Gödel" right now, hoping that a 1915 article by Löwenheim ("On possibilities in the calculus of relatives") will shed some light on this. | |
| Mar 7, 2010 at 22:26 | comment | added | Matt | What puzzles me is that Skolem worked on his proof of Löwenheim–Skolem theorem in 1920, which is prior to Tarski's article. Gödel's completeness theorem is prior to Tarski's article too. How did they have such results without having a well-defined notion of semantics? | |
| Mar 7, 2010 at 21:44 | history | answered | John Goodrick | CC BY-SA 2.5 |