Re: Real mathematics vs FOL
- From: "biubo" <Remove.invalid@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:47:16 +0100
"Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen@xxxxxxx> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:COl4h.279803$5R2.37203@xxxxxxxxxxxx
biubo wrote:
"Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
biubo wrote:
I have two questions:It would be helpful if you could give some ideas as to what you
1)Can you show me some mathematical results which cannot be translated
into first order logic?
2) I remember that once I read on a book of Ebbinghaus, Flum, Thomas
that in f.o. logic you can not define the concept of torsion group.
Is the theory of torsion groups out of the scope of FOL ?
think "real mathematics" should be.
the common mathematics, the one that you can do without knowing much
about logic.
OK. In that sense then I don't know much about 2) but regarding to
1), at least SR cannot be faithfully translated into FOL. (Think about
the impossibility of formalizing the relativity of events'
simultaneity.)
Thank you for the reply, but I was not interested in physics, I asked some
result of pure mathematics.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Real mathematics vs FOL
- From: Mark Tarver
- Re: Real mathematics vs FOL
- References:
- Real mathematics vs FOL
- From: biubo
- Re: Real mathematics vs FOL
- From: Nam Nguyen
- Re: Real mathematics vs FOL
- From: biubo
- Re: Real mathematics vs FOL
- From: Nam Nguyen
- Real mathematics vs FOL
- Prev by Date: Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations
- Next by Date: Re: Intuitionistic troubles...
- Previous by thread: Re: Real mathematics vs FOL
- Next by thread: Re: Real mathematics vs FOL
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|