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
    The Completeness Theorem uses the concept of a first-orde... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Sentences proved from first-order axioms are true in all models of those axioms, including countable models and non-standard models

    The Completeness Theorem uses the concept of a first-order structure, so provability implies truth across all such structures

    Proof of definition segmentsTruth & 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

    Truth & KnowledgeProof of definition segments

    Related

    First-order logic satisfies the Completeness TheoremSentences proved from first-order axioms are true in all models of those axioms,...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Truth & Knowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Lindström (1969) proved that first-order logic is the strongest logic ...79%Lindström (1969) proves that first-order logic is the strongest logic ...79%G_F is provably equivalent to the universal formula ∀x¬Prf_F(x, ⌈G_F⌉)...79%The Gödel sentence G_F is true (when F is consistent and the provabili...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    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

    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