Skip to main content
kate_r's user avatar
kate_r's user avatar
kate_r's user avatar
kate_r
  • Member for 12 years, 3 months
awarded
awarded
awarded
awarded
accepted
comment
Second-order term in first-order logic?
I see. So, to confirm my understanding, in FOL, we can quantify over variables of type, e.g., $A \to B \to ...$ as long as the individuals of the domain are of type $A \to B \to ...$? If so, is this the reason why ZF is a first-order theory even some axioms quantify over sets, e.g., Axiom of union, i.e. the individuals are sets?
comment
Second-order term in first-order logic?
Thanks. So do you know why is the common answer to what is a higher-order logic, like you pointed out, is that any logic in which we intend to have quantifiers over "functions" or "sets"? Is it a special case?
comment
Second-order term in first-order logic?
Thanks. Just to clarify my understanding: the quantification of variables of type $A \to B$ is valid in FOL because the elements of the domain in question are of type $A \to B$. If so, how come the quantification over $(A \to B) \to (A \to B)$ is still valid in FOL?
awarded
awarded
revised
Second-order term in first-order logic?
added 239 characters in body
Loading…
asked
Loading…