Timeline for Peano Arithmetic and the Field of Rationals
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 11, 2012 at 1:51 | comment | added | Ali Enayat | @Samuel Ried: No I have not (sorry for the tardy reply, I have been "away" for a long while). | |
| Mar 11, 2012 at 0:14 | comment | added | Samuel Reid | @AliEnayat: Have you found an answer to your question yet? I would be very interested to know. | |
| May 22, 2011 at 21:00 | history | edited | Ali Enayat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a Postscript
|
| May 22, 2011 at 16:37 | comment | added | Ali Enayat | SJR: The answer to your first question is positive, i.e., nothing fancier is going on. Regarding the second one: the arguments of Robinson's paper should go through in $EFA$ (based on $EFA$'s track record in handling "elementary" number theory); my question is whether anyone has actually shown - in a publishd source - that this is indeed the case. | |
| May 22, 2011 at 5:51 | comment | added | Sidney Raffer | Ali: Suppose $M\models PA$. To interpret $M$ in $\mathbb{Q}^M$ does Julia Robinson's formula with the operations of $\mathbb{Q}^M$ do the job, or is there something fancier going on? Is your question about how much of the argument in Robinson's paper goes through in models of $I\Delta_0+exp$? | |
| May 21, 2011 at 18:01 | history | asked | Ali Enayat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |