Re: what makes it true?

Jim Spriggs <jim.sprigs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> So how, if there are ordinals for which there is no notation, does your
> reply show that Timothy's claim that in PA the concept of an ordinal
> cannot be expressed, is false?

Obviously it doesn't - I was indicating a sense in which the concept
of an ordinal, as used in the proof of Goldstein's theorem, can in
fact be expressed in PA. Hence we must look elsewhere for an
explanation of why the argument cannot be carried out in PA.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So I lied about epsilon-0
    ... GG> ordinals bigger than epsilon-0 in ascii. ... notation system that assigns at least one notation to o. ... greater) between the ordinals they denote is decidable. ... start with the scheme that doesn't give any notation to any ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Aleph_Aleph_1
    ... is for ordinal addition not for cardinal addition. ... functional parentheses notation. ... my impression is that the definition of cardinals ... as initial ordinals is pretty standard. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Question
    ... Nonsense in this notation. ... omega was a sequence of stars, ... This is simply NOT contemplated in the notation YOU ... Were ordinals expressed ONLY as "lists" of *s? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: what makes it true?
    ... > Are there ordinals for which there is no notation? ... There are countable ordinals for which there is no notation. ... Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: what makes it true?
    ... the upper bound for the ordinals that can be given a notation ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)