Re: FO logic without equality
- From: David C. Ullrich <ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:14:24 -0500
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:10:44 +0200, Jan Burse <janburse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
David C. Ullrich wrote:
Exactly what part of that pdf do you think says that
it doesn't matter? That it doesn't matter _to_ _this_
_question_, not that it doesn't matter for some
_other_ purpose.
The papers say:
S u EQ_AX satisfiable iff S normal satisifiable
From this follows what I said:
T u EQ_AX |- A iff T |-_= A
What you said was that whether we're talking about
FOL with or without equality does not matter to
whether it is true that if T has a model then
T has an infinite model. How does _that_ follow
from the above?
Proof:
By (normal) completness:
S u EQ_AX satisfiable <=>
S u EQ_AX consistent <=>
S normal satisfiable <=>
S normal consistent
Further
T u EQ_AX |- A <=>
T u EQ_AX u ~A not consistent <=>
T u ~A not normal consistent <=>
T |-_= A
Bye
************************
David C. Ullrich
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FO logic without equality
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: FO logic without equality
- References:
- Re: FO logic without equality
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: FO logic without equality
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: FO logic without equality
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: FO logic without equality
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: FO logic without equality
- From: Jan Burse
- Re: FO logic without equality
- Prev by Date: Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- Next by Date: Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
- Previous by thread: Re: FO logic without equality
- Next by thread: Re: FO logic without equality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|