Timeline for Need help unpacking the interdependence of axiomatic set theory and first-order logic
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 23, 2023 at 18:59 | comment | added | Alec Rhea | You would probably enjoy Monk’s book on $MK$ class theory; in particular, it has a short introduction intuitively describing the logic used in the development of set theory throughout the book, and has a 12 page appendix developing everything fully formally (although I haven’t ever really gone through that appendix; at a certain point I just trust that it all works out.) | |
| Aug 23, 2023 at 17:33 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | If logicians and set theorists are not allowed to use logic and sets, why are number theorists allowed to use numbers? It is not the job of foundations of mathematics to "build foundations" from nothing, but rather to reflect on how mathematics operates and what its overall structure and methods are, using mathematics itself. This is not circular, at least not any more than talking about English in English. | |
| Aug 23, 2023 at 17:13 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Versions of this question have been asked many times on MO and math.SE. Follow the links in the comments at mathoverflow.net/q/448507/1946. | |
| Aug 23, 2023 at 17:12 | comment | added | Monroe Eskew | First order logic is only a slight abstraction of things you can write on paper. It should be comprehended prior to the axioms of set theory. | |
| S Aug 23, 2023 at 16:53 | review | First questions | |||
| Aug 23, 2023 at 18:10 | |||||
| S Aug 23, 2023 at 16:53 | history | asked | Noah Stebbins | CC BY-SA 4.0 |