I forgot to get either of your contact information. So I figured I’d make a post and hope you guys (including Prof. Reitz) see this. If you have any comments or criticism, lay ’em on me. This is an inital draft so it’s not complete, currently juggling three essays T.T
Handy Links
Recent Comments
Logic on Math StackExchange
- Help with proof in Gentzen-style Natural Deduction July 4, 2024For the life of me, I'm not able to show the following using Gentzen-style ND: $\neg \forall x \exists y Pxy \vdash \exists x \forall y \neg Pxy$ We may use all the usual rules: $\land$-I, $\land$-E, $\lor$-I, $\lor$-E, $\to$-I, $\to$-E, $\neg$-I,$\neg$-E, CR (classical reductio), $\forall$-I, $\forall$-E, $\exists$-I, $\exists$-E, $=$-I, $=$-E. But we may not […]ich bin viele
- Why this is not a standard law in propositional calculus? July 4, 2024$(p\rightarrow q) \vee r \equiv ((p\vee r) \rightarrow (q\vee r))$ I'm asking because it somewhat resembles the distributive property. And there appears to be no name associated with the result.jello
- Must both conditions of operator "OR ($\vee$)" be defined in mathematics? July 4, 2024I am in the process of writing an article and to explain my question, am providing to you a smaller instance of my wondering so that you can understand it, suppose that $A=\{0,1\}$ and that I define the following quantity, for a vector $v=(1,2)$, $v_1=1$ and $v_2=2$: $$\forall i\in \{1,2\},\, b_i= \left(i = dim(v) \vee […]JKHA
- Linear logic: Coherence space semantics for non-atomic formulas July 4, 2024In Jean-Yves Girard's "Between logic and quantic: a tract" (2004) the coherence space semantics of linear logic is explained. First, Girard introduces the notion of a carrier set $\mathbb{X}$ and a coherence space $X \subset 2^{\mathbb{X}}$ as a set of subsets of the carrier set with certain properties that makes the polar of a set […]Erik T
- In what sense is forcing "impossible" in $L$? July 3, 2024I just saw an interesting video from Hugh Woodin about Ultimate $L$. In it, he says one of the reasons $L$ is so interesting is because it not only settles many natural set theory questions, but is also "immune" to Cohen's forcing technique. In what sense can we make this precise? I get the basic […]Mike Battaglia
- Last Bits of Proof of the Compactness Theorem in Propositional Logic July 3, 2024I am reading the proof of compactness theorem for the propositional logic and the last part of the proof is left as exercise 2 of section 1.7 in the book by Enderton, A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. Here is the question. Let $\Delta$ be a set of Well-Formed-Formulas (WFFs) such that every finite subset of […]Hosein Rahnama
- Reading on incomparable Turing degrees July 2, 2024I remember seeing in grad school a very nice proof that there were two incomparable Turing degrees by progressively constructing two sequences that couldn't be computed from each other. Can anyone recommend me a text that has an accessible presentation of such a proof?TomKern
- What's the intuition behind the definition of "rank of a tree"? July 2, 2024Let $T$ be a well-founded tree on $\mathbb{N}$, that is, the set of infinite branches of $T$ is empty. Define a function $\rho_T : T\to \mathbf{ON}$ inductively by $$\rho_T(u)=\sup\{\rho_T(v)+1: u\prec v, v\in T\},$$ where $u\prec v$ denotes that $u$ is an initial segment of $v$ or that $v$ is an extension of $u$, and $\mathbf{ON}$ […]caligulasremorse
- equivalence of statements [closed] July 2, 2024Let's consider the following statements: (a) $f(x_1, y_1, z_1)\neq f(x_2, y_2, z_2)$ for $x_1 \neq x_2$, $y_1 \neq y_2$ and $z_1 \neq z_2$. (b) $f(x, y_1, z_1)\neq f(x, y_2, z_2)$ for $y_1 \neq y_2$ and $z_1 \neq z_2$. (c) $f(x_1, y, z_1)\neq f(x_2, y, z_2)$ for $x_1 \neq x_2$ and $z_1 \neq z_2$. (d) $f(x_1, […]user412933
- distribution of proof lengths for a particular statement July 1, 2024Given a particular theory of arithmetic and a (provable in this theory) statement $s$, we define a function $\theta_s$ that takes a potential proof $p$ and outputs 1 if it is a correct proof of $s$ and 0 otherwise. Then we define another function $|\cdot |$ that takes a potential proof $p$ and outputs its […]cumulonimbus
Thank you Ismail , I read the initial draft and I really like it , Hopefully we will add more to it before we subimtted the final paper