Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Categoricity can still be used in proofs in second-order ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Categoricity can still be used in proofs in second-order logic even when the fullness condition on models is abandoned

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    0 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Internal categoricity is retained even when full Henkin models are not assumed
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Working consistently inside a single model — grounded in the Comprehension Axiom Schema and Axioms of Choice — guarantees internal categoricity
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Internal categoricity is retained even when full Henkin models are not assumed

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Working consistently inside a single model — grounded in the Comprehension Axiom...

    Similar

    Henkin semantics admits a completeness result for second-order logic82%The Compactness Theorem does not hold for second-order logic in the fo...81%Standard second-order logic has serious expressive limitations as a fo...81%The same proof strategy used to establish Prenex Normal Form in first-...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logic-higher-order
    View source passageHide passage
    Let \(c,d\in (a,b)\) such that \(f(c)<0\) and \(f(d)>0\). Without loss of generality, \(c<d\). Let \(X=\{e\in(a,b) : f(e)<0\}\). Since we have relation variables for subsets of the domain, we can think of X simply as a value of such a relation variable. , \(X=\{e : e\notin X\}\)) and then we should not be able to claim that it exists. However, in this case the Comprehension Axiom Schema implies that X exists. Clearly, \(X\ne\emptyset\) and X is bounded from above by d. One of the sec
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (1 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit