Newsgroups: sci.logic, sci.math
From: Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:40:58 -0600
Local: Fri, Jun 19 2009 12:40 am
Subject: Re: chwistek and tarski on nonlogical symbols [can argt erros]
herbzet wrote:That's not true: axiom is a formula and x=x is a formula (as I've alluded
>>>>> Basically my claim is:
>>>>> Given a formal system T, the set of T's theorems can *not* contain more
>>> It could be incorrect, depending on the exact specification of the
>>> But I assume that Nam meant "T's *non-logical* axiom-set" in any
>> So my claim is a very simple meta statement that's either true or false
>> But it's ok to me that you asked for clarification. And I've clarified
> I haven't been following this thread closely, just dipping into it
> Congratulations to you, and to Moeblee also, for putting his finger
> The only remaining quibble is the point Jesse Helms raises. FOL
> I am insufficiently interested in FOL= to know whether it can
to in my other post). So technical any formal system in FOL= can't be
an axiom-less system.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.