Timeline for Book recommendation introduction to model theory
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 7 at 13:17 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | I don't really follow your reaction. I was just trying to explain why it is quite common these days to drop completeness in a math logic class, especially one aiming at model theory, and so one should not be surprised by this in the way that you had expressed. | |
| Jun 7 at 13:08 | comment | added | Ivan Di Liberti | @JoelDavidHamkins it is not my intention to embark myself in any form of true Scottish men debate. We all know that there are no true Scottish men. I find your point peculiar, but I am aware of projecting my personal bias. | |
| Jun 7 at 12:45 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | @IvanDiLiberti Do you consider the completeness theorem part of model theory? It seems instead to be proof theory, with little connection to the rest of model theory. Further, the standard proofs of completeness are often better taken as proofs of the compactness theorem, which is relevant for model theory. I believe this is why many contemporary model theory texts do not cover completeness or instead proofs systems at all. | |
| Jun 7 at 12:19 | comment | added | Ivan Di Liberti | I was checking its table of contents yesterday and I was a bit surprised to not see a section titled "Completeness theorem". Currently it is still the best I have seen indeed. | |
| Jun 7 at 12:14 | history | answered | Tom Leinster | CC BY-SA 4.0 |