Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: The article is NOT listed in any vital article list page. |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Mathematics|importance=mid}}
}}
MAJOR PROBLEM here -- the description of the the abstract levels of the hierarchy do not adequately reflect the alternating nature of the quantifiers. In fact, no where on the page is the word "alternating" found. See the planet math article for a correct description.▼
== boldface distinction ==
Problem here -- the boldface/lightface distinction is not clearly made --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 7 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)
Line 39 ⟶ 40:
Well, not really, the first quantifier of the normalized form, but not of the formula. As we just demonstrated any formula in <math>\Pi^1_n</math> or <math>\Sigma^1_n</math> is in <math>\Delta^1_m</math> for all m>n. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 16:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC).
== alternating ==
▲MAJOR PROBLEM here -- the description of the the abstract levels of the hierarchy do not adequately reflect the alternating nature of the quantifiers. In fact, no where on the page is the word "alternating" found. See the planet math article for a correct description. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/131.107.0.98|131.107.0.98]] ([[User talk:131.107.0.98|talk]]) 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It is true that the page doesn't use the word "alternating", but I think the definition here is correct. Is there something in particular wrong with it? — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
== "Indicies of Computable ordinals" ==
It is unclear what the indicies of computable ordinals are. See the discussion at http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/72826/complexity-of-the-set-of-computable-ordinals. It may refer to recursive well-orderings of <math>\omega</math> or to Kleene's O notation. If it is Kleene's O, there should be a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27s_O. Either way (or if it is both and these are equivalent statements), this should be clarified <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/129.67.127.65|129.67.127.65]] ([[User talk:129.67.127.65|talk]]) 20:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Set parameters in Delta^1_0 ==
Many sources that I've seen say that <math>\Delta^1_0</math> (arithmetical) formulae are allowed to contain set parameters:
* Frittaion, [https://www.jstor.org/stable/27166956?seq=4 A note on fragments of uniform reflection in second-order arithmetic]
* Apt and Marek's [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003484374900011 Second Order Arithmetic and Related Topics]
* Jager and Strahm's [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168007298000566 Bar Induction and ω-model Reflection]
* Steven G. Simpson's ''Subsystems of Second-Order Arithmetic''
If this is the consensus (I'm not sure how much disagreement there is about this convention) should it be added? [[User:C7XWiki|C7XWiki]] ([[User talk:C7XWiki|talk]]) 03:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
| |||