Re: Continuum hypothesis
- From: aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:20:51 -0700
On Aug 16, 8:41 am, Peter_Smith wrote:
The Continuum Hypothesis can be formulated as a statement in the
language of pure second-order logic.
Indeed it can, in the sense that there is a sentence CH* in the
language of pure second-order logic that is valid iff CH is true.
However, this probably is not what the original poster was wondering
about. A more relevant answer is that CH is a statement in third order
arithmetic, that is, there is a sentence CH' in the language of third
order arithmetic that is true just in case CH is true. In general,
given an interpreted second order language there is no guarantee that
there is a sentence the truth of which is equivalent to CH.
The result the original poster probably has in mind is that both ZFC
+CH and ZFC+~CH are conservative over ZFC for arithmetical statements,
i.e. statements in which the quantifiers range over the hereditarily
finite sets (these are equivalent to statements in the first-order
language of arithmetic, of course). The conservativity extends to
Pi^1_4 sentences (in the arithmetical hierarchy), if I recall
correctly.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Continuum hypothesis
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: Continuum hypothesis
- From: djrt20
- Re: Continuum hypothesis
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Continuum hypothesis
- References:
- Continuum hypothesis
- From: djrt20
- Re: Continuum hypothesis
- From: Peter_Smith
- Continuum hypothesis
- Prev by Date: Re: Concrete order types
- Next by Date: Re: Continuum hypothesis
- Previous by thread: Re: Continuum hypothesis
- Next by thread: Re: Continuum hypothesis
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|