Re: Continuum hypothesis
- From: Peter_Smith <ps218@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:04:59 -0700
Well, to be pernickety, since CH can be formulated as a statement of
the language pure second-order logic, it *is* a statement of any
second-order theory whose language includes that of second-order logic
(including second-order arithmetic). Of course, some might well say
that that's just because second-order theories are just set theories
in disguise!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Continuum hypothesis
- From: Rupert
- Re: Continuum hypothesis
- From: William Elliot
- Re: Continuum hypothesis
- References:
- Continuum hypothesis
- From: djrt20
- Re: Continuum hypothesis
- From: William Elliot
- Continuum hypothesis
- Prev by Date: LaTeX for Logicians (was: turnstile symbol in LaTeX)
- Next by Date: Re: Logical problem of evil
- Previous by thread: Re: Continuum hypothesis
- Next by thread: Re: Continuum hypothesis
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading