Re: Semantics of First-Order Languages
- From: Thomas Käufl <kaeufl@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:04:27 +0200
george schrieb:
Well, I hope it is obvious why I could not FOREsee that you
would be meaning THAT. The point being that there are rules
of function-formation/definition out there -- there are set-existence
requirements in ZFC such that GIVEN the existence of certain
recursive functions and predicates, THERE MUST exist certain
other functions that happen not to be recursive (or even r.e.).
please, would you be so kind and tell me what you mean
with "r.e.".
Thomas Käufl
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Semantics of First-Order Languages
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Semantics of First-Order Languages
- Prev by Date: Re: Semantics of First-Order Languages
- Next by Date: Re: Semantic completeness....
- Previous by thread: Re: news clients, servers, spam, google groupers
- Next by thread: Re: Semantics of First-Order Languages
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|