On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Pat Hayes wrote: (01)
> At 10:26 AM -0800 1/15/08, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>> On Tuesday 15 January 2008 08:00, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> At 3:57 PM -0800 1/14/08, Duane Nickull wrote:
>>> >...
>>> >
>>> > As a long time Kawakami fan, I have to both admire his work but
>>> > find this list raises bigger issues. Our universe, for example,
>>> > is a paradox of logic. According to most logic, nothing can go
>>> > on eternally
>>>
>>> Wha? Where did you get that notion from? Most
>>> logics say nothing at all about eternity or
>>> otherwise, but those that do address temporal
>>> continuity allow for eternal entities.
>>
>> Is it not impossible in FOL to finitely axiomatize finiteness? (Does
>> that count as a paradox??)
>
> Its impossible to axiomatize finiteness (in the sense of a sentence
> having only finite models) in FOL, true. (02)
Quick clarification. There are of course (as Pat well knows)
first-order sentences that have ONLY finite models, e.g., (03)
(forall (x y) (= x y)). (04)
The more accurate claim here is that it's impossible to axiomatize
finiteness in FOL in the sense of a sentence being true in ALL and only
finite models. More generally, there is no *set* of first-order
sentences, recursive or not, with arbitrarily large finite models but no
infinite model. (05)
-chris (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|