Re: question about categoricity

ah, so am i right in characterization this as follows: the idea is that
you can add finitely many constants and still remain the size of Nat,
but that those constants will have no "analog" so to speak in the other
model? this seems pretty subtle, is there a better way to make it more
intuitive? perhaps other examples?

thanks a lot for your help.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: question about categoricity
    ... > you can add finitely many constants and still remain the size of Nat, ... > but that those constants will have no "analog" so to speak in the other ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: DCOM on VPN
    ... Site-to-site VPNs don't use NAT either. ... I can speak from direct ... Brian ... Prev by Date: ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.ole)
  • Re: im in zee loev with an ozzie
    ... Robbie ... ur nat aggroo,,,, ... Prev by Date: ...
    (misc.writing)
  • 0xC00D1199: Cannot play the file
    ... XP Home Edition Version 2002 Service Pack 2 ... nat and tre's dad ... Prev by Date: ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsmedia.player)
  • Re: Vertaling Latijn?
    ... >Graag een vertaling voor het latijnse " sus is nat" ... René Wassenaar ... Prev by Date: ...
    (soc.genealogy.benelux)
Quantcast