Re: An example of a complete but undecidable theory
From: H. Enderton (hbe_at_sonia.math.ucla.edu)
Date: 08/26/04
- Next message: H. Enderton: "Re: main connective in SL"
- Previous message: H. Enderton: "Re: L & R"
- In reply to: Mike Oliver: "Re: An example of a complete but undecidable theory"
- Next in thread: Mike Oliver: "Re: An example of a complete but undecidable theory"
- Reply: Mike Oliver: "Re: An example of a complete but undecidable theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:22:27 +0000 (UTC)
Mike Oliver <mike_lists@verizon.net> wrote:
>So here's a question to which I don't know the answer off
>the top of my head: If T is decidable, is there a theory
>T' in some other language, such that T and T' are mutually
>relatively interpretable, and T' is complete? If so,
>then you might argue that a decidable theory is "morally"
>complete, except that its language is too rich, has too
>many symbols that T doesn't say enough about.
Let's take T to be the theory of equality, i.e., the set of
valid sentences in the language {=}. T is decidable, but
not complete.
Your move. What is T'?
--Herb Enderton
- Next message: H. Enderton: "Re: main connective in SL"
- Previous message: H. Enderton: "Re: L & R"
- In reply to: Mike Oliver: "Re: An example of a complete but undecidable theory"
- Next in thread: Mike Oliver: "Re: An example of a complete but undecidable theory"
- Reply: Mike Oliver: "Re: An example of a complete but undecidable theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|