Re: Godel's Incompleteness and Nonmonotonic Logic
From: Stephan Lehmke (Stephan.Lehmke_at_ls1.cs.uni-dortmund.de)
Date: 08/26/04
- Next message: Stephan Lehmke: "Re: Godel's Incompleteness and Nonmonotonic Logic"
- Previous message: Stephan Lehmke: "Re: Godel's Incompleteness and Nonmonotonic Logic"
- In reply to: Jamie Andrews; real address _at_ bottom of message: "Re: Godel's Incompleteness and Nonmonotonic Logic"
- Next in thread: Stephan Lehmke: "Re: Godel's Incompleteness and Nonmonotonic Logic"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 26 Aug 2004 11:55:31 GMT
In article <2p47gfFgp0b4U1@uni-berlin.de>,
me@privacy.net (Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message) writes:
>
> This *completeness* result does not extend to arithmetic
> because no *finite* set of axioms characterizes arithmetic.
> Induction on the integers is an axiom *schema*, not a single axiom.
I think it's exactly the other way round: `Formalizing' arithmetic
with an axiom schema which stands for a (countable) infinity of axioms
leads to a first order `formalization' which does not axiomatize the
naturals up to isomorphism.
The formalization leading to incompleteness is the second order one
with a single (second order) axiom.
regards
Stephan
- Next message: Stephan Lehmke: "Re: Godel's Incompleteness and Nonmonotonic Logic"
- Previous message: Stephan Lehmke: "Re: Godel's Incompleteness and Nonmonotonic Logic"
- In reply to: Jamie Andrews; real address _at_ bottom of message: "Re: Godel's Incompleteness and Nonmonotonic Logic"
- Next in thread: Stephan Lehmke: "Re: Godel's Incompleteness and Nonmonotonic Logic"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|