Timeline for Looking for a source for Intended Interpretation
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2022 at 23:20 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
replaced broken project Euclid links with doi and JSTOR links
|
| Dec 11, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 123 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2016 at 9:16 | history | bounty ended | Mikhail Katz | ||
| Apr 4, 2016 at 9:16 | vote | accept | Mikhail Katz | ||
| Apr 4, 2016 at 9:16 | |||||
| Mar 29, 2016 at 12:22 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 630 characters in body
|
| Mar 29, 2016 at 11:48 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 752 characters in body
|
| Mar 29, 2016 at 11:42 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | The question is whether they identify them explicitly with intuitive counting numbers. | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 11:32 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | Mauro, if you have access to Lyndon and Kreisel-Krivine, could you please look up what they say exactly about standard interpretation and standard model respectively? | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 11:24 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 219 characters in body
|
| Mar 29, 2016 at 10:34 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | Mauro, this is fascinating historical material, and obviously the identification of $\mathbb{N}$ with the intuitive counting numbers is in the background in many of these discussions, but somehow it is not really spelled out the way Wang did. I was hoping to get something more detailed than Wang rather than less detailed :-) | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 9:34 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Mar 28, 2016 at 13:04 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | Is the first sentence the sentence in Wang preceding the one I quoted? | |
| Mar 28, 2016 at 12:28 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | The sentence "The formal system $N$ admits of different interpretations, according to findings of Gödel (from 1931) and of the Norwegian mathematician Thoralf Skolem, a pioneer in metalogic (from 1933). The originally intended, or standard, interpretation takes the ordinary nonnegative integers $\{ 0, 1, 2,\ldots \}$ as the domain, the symbols $0$ and $1$ as denoting zero and one" looks perfectly "compatible" with Wang's 1955 and 1957 papers. | |
| Mar 28, 2016 at 10:11 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | Wang's contribution to Metalogic dates from 1974 but as is noted in the link you provided it was modified in 1990 ("included in part") so it stands to reason it may have been modified further by 2016. | |
| Mar 28, 2016 at 10:10 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 28, 2016 at 9:54 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 606 characters in body
|
| Mar 28, 2016 at 9:29 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 487 characters in body
|
| Mar 28, 2016 at 8:48 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 805 characters in body
|
| Mar 28, 2016 at 7:20 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 104 characters in body
|
| Mar 27, 2016 at 18:28 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 73 characters in body
|
| Mar 27, 2016 at 18:18 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1043 characters in body
|
| Mar 27, 2016 at 18:10 | history | answered | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |