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 proof-theory
Search options not deleted
user 177774
For question in Proof Theory, where "proofs" themselves are the object of mathematical investigation. It is not to be used to request a proof of some result.
2
votes
0
answers
79
views
Is monotonicity redundant in this definition of Tarskian logics?
Given a logic over a language $L$, which has a consequence relation $\vdash$. This logic is Tarskian if for every $\Gamma \cup \Delta \cup {\alpha} \subseteq L$:
If $\alpha \in \Gamma$, then $\Gamma …
- 21