Timeline for What sort of cardinal number is the Löwenheim–Skolem number for second-order logic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 3, 2021 at 17:52 | history | edited | Emil Jeřábek | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
since the question was bumped, fix TeX and other typographical matters
|
| Dec 3, 2021 at 17:30 | answer | added | Dmytro Taranovsky | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 8, 2021 at 22:05 | history | edited | Noah Schweber |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 10, 2016 at 7:23 | answer | added | Mohammad Golshani | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 20, 2015 at 16:00 | comment | added | Thomas Benjamin | @JoelDavidHamkins: Stranger still, the wikipedia link to the paper in question (listed as "report #15 (2009/2010) of the Mittag-Leffler Institute") gets you to a paper in which '$\lt$' rather than '$\le$' is found in the definition of Lowenheim-Skolem number. Is there an official report #15 (2009/2010) of the Mittag-Leffler Institute wherein the misprint is corrected? It would be nice to have a link to that report. | |
| Jul 20, 2015 at 15:38 | history | edited | Thomas Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected misprint from quoted paper
|
| Jul 20, 2015 at 15:36 | comment | added | Thomas Benjamin | @AndreasBlass: Then it must have been a misprint. I will make the necessary correction. Thanks | |
| Jul 20, 2015 at 15:10 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | @JoelDavidHamkins is right. You can't reasonably expect to get models of $T$ that are smaller than $|T|$. | |
| Jul 20, 2015 at 14:58 | history | edited | Thomas Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected spelling
|
| Jul 20, 2015 at 1:10 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Strange. Wikipedia defines it as I suggest, and that definition makes sense to me: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6wenheim_number#Extensions. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 21:51 | comment | added | Thomas Benjamin | @JoelDavidHamkins: I quoted it exactly as was written in their paper. Perhaps it was a misprint. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 12:20 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Thomas, in your definition of the Löwenheim-Skolem number, shouldn't it be $\kappa\leq\text{max}(\kappa,|T|)$, rather than $<$? | |
| S Jul 19, 2015 at 8:58 | history | suggested | Martin Berger | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added proper umlauts.
|
| Jul 19, 2015 at 8:17 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 19, 2015 at 8:58 | |||||
| Jul 19, 2015 at 6:27 | comment | added | Thomas Benjamin | @MonroeEskew: Have you references? | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 4:23 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | Why did this get a -1? Seems a fine question to me. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 3:49 | comment | added | Monroe Eskew | Magidor has results on this. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 3:30 | history | asked | Thomas Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |