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 88133
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.
6
votes
Zorn's lemma: old friend or historical relic?
Here's another example, from a rather worm's-eye view. (Apologies for too many edits.)
Theorem: Let $R$ be a non-zero commutative ring with $1$.
Then there exists a minimal prime ideal in $R$, i.e., a …
- 6,237
3
votes
Taking a theorem as a definition and proving the original definition as a theorem
One of the other answers briefly mentions tensors, but I think it’s a perfect answer to the question and deserves expansion. Tensors can be defined in several ways that are equivalent, but one’s choic …