Timeline for Arithmetic fixed point theorem
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 11, 2017 at 8:46 | comment | added | Maxime Ramzi | If I remember correctly, Gödel's fixed point theorem, Cantor's theorem, and the fixed point theorem in lambda-calculus are all instances of Lawvere's fixed point theorem | |
| May 31, 2011 at 4:31 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | @Ali: You may post this as an answer :-) | |
| May 31, 2011 at 2:07 | comment | added | Ali Enayat | Martin: I suggest Gaifman's paper Naming and Diagonalization, from Cantor to Gödel to Kleene for insight about the common theme between various diagonalization theprems, including Carnap's [the arithmetic fixed point theorem is due to him, according to Gaifman]. Here is the link for Gaifman's paper: columbia.edu/~hg17/naming-diag.pdf | |
| May 29, 2011 at 23:43 | answer | added | Gyorgy Sereny | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 28, 2011 at 3:25 | answer | added | Sridhar Ramesh | timeline score: 18 | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 15:17 | answer | added | Peter Arndt | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 13, 2010 at 14:46 | answer | added | David Corfield | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 13, 2010 at 9:50 | vote | accept | Martin Brandenburg | ||
| Jul 13, 2010 at 9:50 | history | bounty ended | Martin Brandenburg | ||
| Jul 13, 2010 at 9:43 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | There is also a fixed point theorem in $\lambda$-calculus: For every combinator $G$ there is a combinator $F$ such that $F=GF$. The proof is essentially the same. | |
| Jul 13, 2010 at 1:59 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 43 | |
| Jul 11, 2010 at 8:17 | answer | added | Linda Brown Westrick | timeline score: 23 | |
| Jul 10, 2010 at 12:54 | answer | added | falagar | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 10, 2010 at 9:49 | history | bounty started | Martin Brandenburg | ||
| Jul 8, 2010 at 9:56 | history | edited | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
typo
|
| Jul 7, 2010 at 12:53 | comment | added | Neel Krishnaswami | This part of the proof has always reminded me of the definition of the $\omega$ combinator from lambda calculus: that is, $(\lambda x.\;x\;x)\;(\lambda x.\;x\;x)$. Can this connection can be made precise? | |
| Jul 7, 2010 at 12:44 | comment | added | Carl Mummert | This is a good question, because the proof is often presented in a cryptic way. I don't know the site conventions: should it be tagged as a soft question? | |
| Jul 7, 2010 at 12:40 | history | edited | Carl Mummert |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 7, 2010 at 12:36 | answer | added | Carl Mummert | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jul 7, 2010 at 11:28 | history | asked | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |