Re: FO logic without equality

On Wed, 31 May 2006 12:40:02 +0200, Jan Burse <janburse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Hi

David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 02:53:26 +0200, Jan Burse <janburse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Huh? Nobody has disputed the fact that
_that_ sentence has only models of cardinality 1.

See Post by Alan Smaill.

He gave a (very non normal) model
with cardinality<>1.

Are you intentionally leaving out all the context
so nobody can tell what you're referring to?
He posted a model of the sentence

forall x(EQ(x,c))

with cardinality greater than 1. As did I,
in fact it was exactly the same model (posted
before I saw his post - it's the natural example.)

This is not the same as the sentence I was referring
to above, namely forall x(x=c).


************************

David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages