Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 5, 2020 at 13:26 comment added R. Matveev @MattF. True. I was puzzled by the Wikipedia entry literally saying that completeness of Hilbert's system was proven by Tarski. With the hindsight I would formulate the question differently.
Feb 5, 2020 at 12:44 comment added user44143 The question currently mentions “the completeness of Hilbert’s system” and “not first-order” statements, as if asking about a statement by Hilbert and proof by Tarski. If you’re only interested in the Tarski part, it would help to clarify that.
Feb 5, 2020 at 7:58 vote accept R. Matveev
Feb 5, 2020 at 7:57 comment added R. Matveev @Sergei Akbarov. I did not express any opinion about the content of any Wikipedia page.
Feb 5, 2020 at 7:56 comment added R. Matveev @Matt F. The question is though about the statement and the proof by Tarski, not Hilbert.
Feb 4, 2020 at 20:33 history became hot network question
Feb 4, 2020 at 20:25 comment added Sergei Akbarov You should not trust Russian Wikipedia. It is written by uneducated people who accidentally seized power. Almost everything written there on mathematics contains a substantial amount of absurdity. Here is an example of a debate on what was written about the foundations of mathematics: ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
Feb 4, 2020 at 19:28 comment added user44143 For 1, I'd say that Hilbert's Foundations of Geometry was a key step in the formalist vision of math, but his notion of completeness was vague, given that he was writing before the formalization of set theory and the standardization of first-order logic.
Feb 4, 2020 at 19:00 answer added Matthé van der Lee timeline score: 13
Feb 4, 2020 at 12:49 history edited YCor CC BY-SA 4.0
formatted links, removed capitals
Feb 4, 2020 at 12:25 history asked R. Matveev CC BY-SA 4.0