Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: Torkel Franzen <torkel@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 01 Oct 2005 13:29:40 +0200
"William of Ockham" <d3uckner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Why do we need to define it? It includes whatever I refer to when I
> say "the real numbers".
So in fact you're not talking about the Loewenheim-Skolem theorem
at all?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- References:
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Next by Date: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Previous by thread: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Next by thread: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Index(es):