Re: FO logic without equality
- From: Jan Burse <janburse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:51:38 +0200
Ok, you sorted it all out by yourself.
Good
David C. Ullrich wrote:
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
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FO logic without equality
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: FO logic without equality
- References:
- Re: FO logic without equality
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: FO logic without equality
- Prev by Date: Re: Vague or Ambiguous?
- Next by Date: Fifth new law from the premises of syllogism
- Previous by thread: Re: FO logic without equality
- Next by thread: Re: FO logic without equality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|