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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Formal systems have inherent weakness, traceable to Skole... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Infinite structures cannot be fully characterized by deductive means in second-order logic

    Formal systems have inherent weakness, traceable to Skolem and Gödel, that prevents deductive systems from pinning down infinite structures up to isomorphism

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Deductions in second-order logic cannot distinguish the intended model M from it...For any sentence φ that characterizes a structure M up to isomorphism, the class...Infinite structures cannot be fully characterized by deductive means in second-o...

    Similar

    Formal deductive systems have inherent weakness going back to Skolem a...85%In Gentzen systems, proofs never lose structure because connectives ar...76%Countably many structures cannot exhaust all structures of every infin...75%As in set theory without the Axiom of Choice, distinct characterizatio...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: logic-higher-order
    View source passageHide passage
    Obviously, \(\Mod(\phi)\subseteq \textit{Mod}_H(\phi)\). If \(\phi\) characterizes \(\mm\) up to isomorphism, then \(\mm\in \Mod(\phi) \). In all non-trivial cases[16] \(\textit{Mod}_H(\phi)\ne \{\mm\}\). We can think of \(\textit{Mod}_H(\phi)\) as a class of “approximations” of \(\mm\). One of the approximations is the “real” \(\mm\) but by means of deductions in second-order logic we cannot tell which. Because of the inherent weakness of formal systems, going back to Skolem and Gödel, infini

    Details

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

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective