Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 13, 2021 at 20:54 history edited Zuhair Al-Johar CC BY-SA 4.0
added 16 characters in body
Jan 13, 2021 at 6:49 history edited Zuhair Al-Johar CC BY-SA 4.0
added 65 characters in body
Jan 13, 2021 at 6:45 comment added Zuhair Al-Johar @GregKirmayer, for precision purposes, I'll try put a note to that effect.
Jan 12, 2021 at 18:27 comment added Zuhair Al-Johar @GregKirmayer, I agree, and I know what you mean, but I'm here abusing the notation, and I think its a common abuse and fairly understood, the point is that there will be no $A,B$ symbols when the formula is parameter free, but to write that explicitly it'll be messy that's why I didn't write it. My idea is that when $\phi$ is for example the formula $Y \neq Y$ then the formula $\pi$ would be read without symbols $A,B$ at all, so it'sll be $\forall Y (Y \neq Y \Rightarrow H_{<W}(Y)) \to \exists X < W (X=\emptyset)$, the same thing apply for formula $Y=A$ here $\pi$ would not have $B$ in it.
Jan 12, 2021 at 17:33 comment added Greg Kirmayer The scheme begins with "∀𝐴,𝐵 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐻<𝑊". The whole scheme is true for empty W, because there are no such 𝐴,𝐵.
Jan 12, 2021 at 17:18 comment added Zuhair Al-Johar $\exists W: W \neq \emptyset$ is a theorem of this theory! Just let $\phi$ be any false formula without parameters and substitute it in Reflection.
Jan 12, 2021 at 17:11 comment added Greg Kirmayer The reflection scheme always holds. Perhaps you want to add W is not empty.
Jan 12, 2021 at 14:55 history edited Zuhair Al-Johar CC BY-SA 4.0
added 305 characters in body
Jan 12, 2021 at 14:48 history undeleted Zuhair Al-Johar
Jan 12, 2021 at 14:46 history deleted Zuhair Al-Johar via Vote
Jan 11, 2021 at 13:28 history edited Zuhair Al-Johar CC BY-SA 4.0
edited title
Jan 11, 2021 at 8:49 history asked Zuhair Al-Johar CC BY-SA 4.0