Elementary Logic Book: Complete Completeness Theorem Coverage

  • Thread starter Thread starter tgt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
tgt
Messages
519
Reaction score
2
Need an elementary logic book that completely covers the completeness theorem (no pun intended).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean by the "completeness theorem"? I know of Goedel's incompleteness theorem. If that is what you mean, I honestly don't think an elementary logic book could! In my opinion, Nagel and Neumann's book "Goedel's Proof" is probably the simplest.
 
Gödel proved a completeness theorem in addition to his two incompleteness theorems for logic. There are probably other 'completness theorem's too both in logic and in other contexts, so it's not clear that's the one the OP means.

If the OP does mean Gödel's completeness theorem, I imagine it should be in just about any good introductory text on formal logic. (i.e. a text meant to teach the discipline of formal logic, rather than an 'introduction to proofs in mathematics'-type book)
 
Hurkyl said:
Gödel proved a completeness theorem in addition to his two incompleteness theorems for logic. There are probably other 'completness theorem's too both in logic and in other contexts, so it's not clear that's the one the OP means.

If the OP does mean Gödel's completeness theorem, I imagine it should be in just about any good introductory text on formal logic. (i.e. a text meant to teach the discipline of formal logic, rather than an 'introduction to proofs in mathematics'-type book)

Yes, Godel's completeness theorem. Any specific ones? I am looking for the most basic one available.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top