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 reverse-math
Search options not deleted
user 35868
The general enterprise of calibrating the strength of classical mathematical theorems in terms of the axioms, typically of set existence, needed to prove them; originated in its modern form in the 1970s by H. Friedman and S. G. Simpson (see R.A. Shore, "Reverse Mathematics: The Playground of Logic", 2010).
11
votes
Accepted
Cases where multiple induction steps are provably required
Here is a reference for one way of making precise sense of your question and answering it:
Stefan Hetzl and Tin Lok Wong (2017): "Some observations on the logical foundations of inductive theorem …
- 155