Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.logic > #254219

Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory

Show key headers only | View raw

To push the cart, here is a suggestion how to further
proceed and replicate some results from Terrence Tao.
The sentence produced when translated to first order

logic will have two parameters. The set Q, for the
quaternary predicate Q, and the set U for the domain
U. In honor of Terrence Tao, let the sentence produce be:

/* What we get when we translate the dependency 
quantifier example from Terence Tao */
T(U, Q)

Now to replicate this result here:

"For every real numbers ...
is true in the non-standard model of the real
numbers, but false in the standard model"
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/printer-friendly-css-and-nonfirstorderizability/#more-172

You can preform the following logic experiments
with DC Proof. Try finding a Q0 and U_1 and U_2
such that:

|- T(U1,Q0)
|- ~T(U2,Q0)

So the domain U1 will play the role of the non-standard
model, and the domain U2 will play the role of the standard
model, and we interpret "true" and "false" as provability

and provable refutation FOL + Set Theory. Can you find
some Q0, U1 and U2 with such a property. Then one thing
should lead to the other, SOL we usually assume that

there is only one U. Especially in Second Order Arithmetic
the assumption is that U = ω, which would explain why
SOL would give another result than FOL + Set Theory.

Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 10. Juni 2023 um 20:27:59 UTC+2:
> Whats the domain of r1? Can you prove r1 ⊆ U x U? 
> Please show us. Currently r1 can be anything.
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Samstag, 10. Juni 2023 um 20:21:24 UTC+2: 
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 2:06:27 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote: 
> > > Note there is only one domain U in SOL, which appears 
> > > first order and second order, i.e. first order as for example x e U 
> > > and second order as for example R ⊆ U x U. 
> > > 
> > > On the other hand your formula has not a single domain U. 
> > I have only one domain, the set u here, the domain of quantification for each quantifier. 
> > ALL(a):[a in u => EXIST(b):[b in u & (a,b) in r1]] 
> > 
> > & ALL(a):[a in u => EXIST(b):[b in u & (a,b) in r21]] 
> > 
> > & ALL(x):ALL(x'):ALL(y):ALL(y'):[x in u & x' in u & y in u & y' in u => [(x,y) in r1 & (x',y') in r2 => Q(x,x',y,y')]] 
> > > I don't know what your formula does. Its surely not Terrence 
> > > Taos formula. 
> > In what way is it inconsistent with his statement: 
> > "For every x and x’, there exists a y depending only on x and a y’ depending only on x’ such that Q(x,x’,y,y’) is true" 
> > Dan 
> > 
> > Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com 
> > Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-07 20:25 -0700
  Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-07 22:11 -0700
    Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2023-06-07 23:34 -0700
      Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-08 07:31 -0700
  Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 00:51 -0700
    Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 01:03 -0700
      Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 01:19 -0700
      Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-08 08:04 -0700
        Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 11:10 -0700
          Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-08 11:40 -0700
          Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-08 11:51 -0700
            Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 12:16 -0700
              Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-08 12:34 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 13:47 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 13:57 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 14:11 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-08 14:42 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 14:45 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 14:51 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-08 14:57 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 15:04 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 15:09 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-08 15:28 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 15:48 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 15:54 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-08 19:43 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-08 19:32 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-08 14:38 -0700
  Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-08 21:19 -0700
    Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-09 00:21 -0700
      Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-09 00:28 -0700
        Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-09 00:34 -0700
          Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-09 00:48 -0700
      Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-09 06:57 -0700
        Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-06-09 21:04 +0200
          Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-09 13:28 -0700
            Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-09 15:42 -0700
              Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-09 15:58 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-10 13:36 -0700
              Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-09 18:17 -0700
              Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-09 18:20 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-10 04:30 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-10 04:46 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-10 10:52 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-10 11:06 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-10 11:11 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-10 11:17 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-12 00:37 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-12 00:38 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-12 07:22 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-12 08:17 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-10 11:21 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-10 11:27 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-10 15:10 -0700
                Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-11 02:02 -0700
    Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-09 12:03 -0700
      Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-06-09 21:12 +0200
        Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-06-09 21:22 +0200
          Re: Expressability in the notation of set theory Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-09 12:33 -0700

csiph-web