Timeline for Is there any relationship between Bourbaki's Epsilon Calculus and Lambda Calculus? Is $\lambda x$ the same as $\tau_x$?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2016 at 20:27 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | As to whether lambda and epsilon "have similarity", the only similarity that I see is that they both bind a variable. So Neel's answer pretty much covers what there is to say. | |
| S May 4, 2016 at 17:53 | history | suggested | jeq | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added MathJax dollar-signs to title.
|
| May 4, 2016 at 17:36 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 4, 2016 at 17:53 | |||||
| Jul 9, 2013 at 1:19 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jul 9, 2013 at 1:33 | |||||
| Feb 7, 2012 at 15:34 | answer | added | Neel Krishnaswami | timeline score: 17 | |
| Jan 23, 2012 at 12:58 | comment | added | nature1729 | I think I should have used more precise language. What I meant, whether Lambda Calculus and Bourbaki's Epsilon Calculus have similarity ? I did not mean to assert that $x$ in $\lambda{x}$ and $x$ in $\tau_{x}$ are same. Is not rules of quantification as illustrated in Quine, rules of Meta-Mathematics as in Bourbaki and Lambda Calculus share same theme ? | |
| Jan 23, 2012 at 12:07 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | They certainly aren't the same: $\lambda x$ applies to terms whereas $\tau_x$ applies to formulas. So $\lambda x.x$ is the identity map, but $\tau_x x$ makes no sense since $x$ is not a well-formed formula. Similarly $\lambda x.(x = x)$ makes no sense, but $\tau_x (x=x)$ is a choice of element of the universe. (You could view equality as a binary function that takes values in a truth-value sort, but then $\lambda x.(x = x)$ is the same as $x=x$ not an element of the sort of $x$.) | |
| Jan 23, 2012 at 7:58 | history | edited | Yemon Choi |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 23, 2012 at 6:31 | history | asked | nature1729 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |