Skip to main content

New answers tagged

2 votes

The smallest possible formal definition of FOL

With the premise that I do not have Ebbinghaus, so I cannot check what the book exactly is saying or quote from it: First, you have an “alphabet” - a collection of symbols. I do not know if this ...
Julio Di Egidio - inactive's user avatar
0 votes

The smallest possible formal definition of FOL

This is not a definition of FOL, just some notes, too long to be a comment, for your analysis, in a simple language. I will soon delete this, for experience, I know posts about the core of the ...
RodolfoAP's user avatar
  • 7,479
-2 votes

The smallest possible formal definition of FOL

First, you have an “alphabet” - a collection of symbols. I do not know if this collection is meant to be a “theory-agnostic” one, in the sense that, it is a not a “set” as defined in ZFC, nor is it a ...
lee pappas's user avatar
0 votes

Is there a set theory which implies the interval [0, 1] but no more?

Is there a set theory which implies the interval [0, 1] but no more? it's weird to talk about 'implying an object', as implication is a connective, something that holds between propositions, not ...
ac15's user avatar
  • 1,786

Top 50 recent answers are included