Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with lo.logic
Search options not deleted
user 142115
first-order and higher-order logic, model theory, set theory, proof theory, computability theory, formal languages, definability, interplay of syntax and semantics, constructive logic, intuitionism, philosophical logic, modal logic, completeness, Gödel incompleteness, decidability, undecidability, theories of truth, truth revision, consistency.
0
votes
1
answer
204
views
Does the fixed point lemma / diagonalization require capturing or not?
Peter Smith's formulation of the diagonalization lemma is essentially as follows, from Theorem 47 of his (fantastic) online book:
If theory T extends Robinson Arithmetic, and P is an one-place open
s …
- 31
3
votes
0
answers
699
views
Can third-order arithmetic prove the consistency of second-order arithmetic?
I'm trying to get a deeper understanding of Buss's version of Gödel's speedup proof. In short, if we assume that $Z_0$ is first-order arithmetic, $Z_1$ is second-order arithmetic, and so on, then for …
- 31