Re: non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry?
- From: Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:08:21 +0200
Gc <Gcut667@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
It is not true, I am sorry. But Aatu knows this stuff and he gave an
example where the non isomorphic models have then same language. It
is no use to speak about "unique up to isomorphism" if the language
are not compatible.
From a model of the first-order theory of the reals you get a model of(first-order) elementary geometry. A non-Archimedean model results by
starting with a non-Archimedean model of the theory of the reals,
e.g. such as obtained essentially by the compactness argument David
outlined.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxx)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
.
- References:
- non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry?
- From: Ben Crowell
- Re: non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry?
- From: Gc
- Re: non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry?
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry?
- From: Gc
- non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry?
- Prev by Date: Re: non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry?
- Next by Date: Re: non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry?
- Previous by thread: Re: non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry?
- Next by thread: Re: non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
