Re: Proof of finite axiomatizability

From: David C. Ullrich <ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 04:33:34 -0500

On 25 Oct 2006 21:10:52 -0700, "Atreides" <gpekhimenko@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

F is a set of sentences: { A_1, A_2, ...} s.t. {A_1 .. A_i} |/= A_i+1 (
A_i+1 is not a logical consequence of previous A_i's). How to prove
that F is NOT finite axiomatizable?

Why do you think that follows? There are very simple counterexamples.

Any ideas or hints?
Can we do something like this - get every finite T, add it's elements
to F and suppose that this property still holds?

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

David C. Ullrich
.

References:
- Proof of finite axiomatizability
  - From: Atreides

Prev by Date: Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? .
Next by Date: Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? .
Previous by thread: Re: Proof of finite axiomatizability
Next by thread: On Ultrafinitism
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: LHopital #2
... It's very easy to give counterexamples. ... >>David C. Ullrich ... >As one of the previous post (and my original post) said, ...
(sci.math)
Re: A curiousity
... "David C. Ullrich" wrote: ... break in symmetry that occured between two identical systems (in that ... is just that it's incredibly easy to give counterexamples. ...
(sci.logic)
Re: LHopital #2
... On 07 Jul 2004, David C. Ullrich wrote: ... It's very easy to give counterexamples. ... and spent a few nights wondering about this. ...
(sci.math)
Re: LHopital #2
... Shinya") wrote: ... It's very easy to give counterexamples. ... >>David C. Ullrich ...
(sci.math)
Re: LHopital #2
... >>David C. Ullrich ... >As one of the previous post (and my original post) said, ... Why not think about why the counterexamples people have given ...
(sci.math)