Timeline for Completeness vs Compactness in logic
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2 at 6:32 | comment | added | Ali Enayat | @RodrigoFreire Thanks for catching the blooper and the parsing issue. They are both fixed now. | |
| Dec 2 at 6:30 | history | edited | Ali Enayat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed the displayed formula
|
| Dec 2 at 0:15 | comment | added | Rodrigo Freire | Let me take the opportunity to say that the above implication seems to me to be wrong. The existential quantifier should be placed outside the implication, otherwise it is not an $ESO$ sentence. Is the parsing ok? I also think that the part involving $X$ is not right, it is the negation of what it should be. Please correct me if I am wrong. | |
| Dec 1 at 17:31 | history | edited | Ali Enayat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added further links and modified the displayed formula in the PS.
|
| Dec 1 at 11:48 | comment | added | Ali Enayat | @NoahSchweber Many thanks for the correction (better late than never). The PS is now modified in light of your comment. | |
| Dec 1 at 11:47 | history | edited | Ali Enayat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Modified the PS in light of the corrective comment of Noah Schweber.
|
| Nov 30 at 20:46 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | Very belatedly, I don't think the PS is fully correct: the set of ESO validities is not even arithmetically definable, via the sentence "There is an $S$ such that either the axioms of Robinson arithmetic fail to hold, or $S$ defines a proper cut, or $\varphi$ is true" (with $\varphi$ arithmetical). | |
| Jun 27, 2011 at 21:44 | history | edited | Ali Enayat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a PS.
|
| Jun 26, 2011 at 21:09 | history | answered | Ali Enayat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |