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 4137
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).
4
votes
1
answer
284
views
Who first proved there's an $\omega$-model of $\mathsf{WKL}_0$ in which all sets are low?
I am trying to pin down: who first proved that $\mathsf{WKL}_0$ has an $\omega$-model in which every set is of low degree? As shown in Simpson's Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic (Theorem IX.2.17) …
- 2,305