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 537177
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.
6
votes
0
answers
115
views
Is there a syntactic proof that first-order positive inductive definitions are conservative?
Every first-order positive inductive definition has a fixed point. It follows that, if the biconditional is thought of as an axiom in the language obtained from the background language by adding a new …
- 61