Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
www.cs.uic.edu | ||
| | | | |
unstableontology.com
|
|
| | | | | (note: some readers may find the LaTeX more readable on LessWrong.) In this post I prove a variant of Gödel's completeness theorem. My intention has been to really understand the theorem, so that I am not simply shuffling symbols around, but am actually understanding why it is true. I hope it is helpful for at... | |
| | | | |
www.umsu.de
|
|
| | | | | [AI summary] The discussion centers on the interpretation of higher-order logic and the role of metaphysical domains. Andrew Bacon argues that higher-order logic doesn't require a metaphysical commitment to domains of objects, properties, or propositions. Instead, he emphasizes the use of stipulative definitions and logical connections between sentences to interpret expressions. He contrasts this with the idea that models must be interpreted in a way that reflects a metaphysical structure of reality. The conversation also touches on the nature of provability operators and their relationship to logical frameworks, highlighting the distinction between formal languages and their interpretations in different contexts. | |
| | | | |
thehousecarpenter.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | | | NB: I've opted to just get straight to the point with this post rather than attempting to introduce the subject first, so it may be of little interest to readers who aren't already interested in proving the completeness theorem for propositional logic. A PDF version of this document is available here. The key thing I... | |
| | | | |
gilkanelostlayouts.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | Visit the post for more. | ||
