Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Matheology § 224
Replies: 2   Last Post: Apr 12, 2013 10:14 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
namducnguyen

Posts: 2,699
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Matheology § 224
Posted: Apr 12, 2013 10:14 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 12/04/2013 7:50 AM, Alan Smaill wrote:
> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:
>

>> On 12/04/2013 3:29 AM, Alan Smaill wrote:
>>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:
>>>

>>>> But what is "meta-logic of the meta-language", in the context of FOL
>>>> structure? Or is that at best just intuition and at worst just a
>>>> buzzword?

>>>
>>> You tell us that it is possible to reason about language structures.
>>> What logic are you using to do that -- or is that at best just intuition?

>>
>> I've used FOL ( _First Order Logic_ ) definitions that one should be
>> familiar with.
>>
>> If anything, notation like "this" is defined in term of FOL
>> terminologies.

>
> ie, you use a first-order meta-logic.


OK. Why don't we just call it First Order Logic as everyone is supposed
to understand already?
>
>> So I don't see all that historical context of "meta-logic" would
>> have anything to do with the issue of, say, whether or not it's
>> impossible to construct the naturals as a language model.

>
> The strength of the meta-logic does have a bearing.
> Do you allow proof by induction over the syntax of formulas,
> for example?


So you're talking the strength (and weakness) of First Order Logic.
>
>> If you could construct it, as I did construct Mg, M1, ..., then present
>> the construction, otherwise at least for the time being admit you
>> couldn't do it.
>>
>> Why would that be such a difficult task for one to do?

>
> That's not what's at issue here.
>
> Suppose you have a language structure for the language of Peano
> Arithmetic where all the axioms of PA are true, and suppose
> that the underlying set is X, and "0" is the constant used
> for the number zero.


"Suppose" is hypothetical but sure, I could hypothesize such.
>
> Is there a way of characterising the element of Z correponding to "0"?
> Or is that a matter of opinion?
>

But, FOL definition of language structure already provides that, e.g.:

('0', {}).

Right?

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.