Mixing
Vacuous truths in Superstructure approach to Nonstandard Analysis
$begingroup$
Good evening everybody,
at the moment I'm studying non-standard analysis, specifically the superstructure approach to it. This approximately works as described in chapter 3 of http://people.dm.unipi.it/dinasso/papers/20.pdf. So far I've mostly understood this construction, and also worked through the detailed construction in chapter 4.4 of Chang & Keisler's Model Theory. But there is one unmentioned detail that has been bugging me, concerning the interpretation of formulas in $V(X)$, the superstructure over a base set $X$.
One of the central points of nonstandard analysis is the transfer principle, which states that for a bounded quantifier formula $varphi (x_1,...,x_n)$, if $a_1,...,a_n in V(X)$, then $$(V(X), in) models varphi[a_1,...,a_n] iff (V(^* ! X), in) models varphi[^*a_1,...,{} ^*a_n].$$
Since we only interpret these formulas in $V(X)$, this means that when considering a bounded quantifier, say the quantifier in $forall w in u (w in v)$ (or, phrased differently, $u subseteq v$), the quantifier ranges only over elements in $u cap V(X)$. In most cases, this will not be a problem, since $V(X)$ is transitive, so if $u in V(X) setminus X$, then $u cap V(X) = u$.
But if we consider any element $x$ of the base set $X$ (so $x cap V(X) = emptyset$) and an arbitrary $y in V(X)$, then $(V(X), in)$ 'believes' $forall w in x (w in y)$ vacuously, although this usually isn't true in our normal universe. I think this is suboptimal, since the goal should be proving valid formulas (in our usual set theoretic setting) by proving them inside $V(X)$ and $V(^* ! X)$, using the transfer principle and other tools.
I first tried the naive fix of just allowing assignments $a_1,...,a_n in V(X) setminus X$, but this does not handle nested quantifications, for example in the statement $forall x in X(forall z in x(z in y))$, where $y in V(X)$ is arbitrary and $X$ is our base set. Also, apart from when they are the range of a quantifier, we need to be able to assign individuals (relative to $V(X)$) to free variables.
It seems like we need to avoid any quantification over elements of rank $0$ to be able to infer truth of $varphi$ (in our set theoretic universe) from truth of $varphi$ in $(V(X), in)$. So, my questions are as follows:
$1.$ First, and foremost: Am I missing something? Is this an actual problem or just a misunderstanding?
$2.$ If not, why wasn't this mentioned in the texts I considered? Also, is there a simpler characterization of the formulas that will be 'misinterpreted' by $(V(X), in)$?
Thank you for your time.
logic set-theory model-theory nonstandard-analysis
edited Feb 3 at 1:48
Hanul Jeon
17.7k42881
asked Jan 30 at 20:57
user2103480user2103480
689616
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Good evening everybody,
at the moment I'm studying non-standard analysis, specifically the superstructure approach to it. This approximately works as described in chapter 3 of http://people.dm.unipi.it/dinasso/papers/20.pdf. So far I've mostly understood this construction, and also worked through the detailed construction in chapter 4.4 of Chang & Keisler's Model Theory. But there is one unmentioned detail that has been bugging me, concerning the interpretation of formulas in $V(X)$, the superstructure over a base set $X$.
One of the central points of nonstandard analysis is the transfer principle, which states that for a bounded quantifier formula $varphi (x_1,...,x_n)$, if $a_1,...,a_n in V(X)$, then $$(V(X), in) models varphi[a_1,...,a_n] iff (V(^* ! X), in) models varphi[^*a_1,...,{} ^*a_n].$$
Since we only interpret these formulas in $V(X)$, this means that when considering a bounded quantifier, say the quantifier in $forall w in u (w in v)$ (or, phrased differently, $u subseteq v$), the quantifier ranges only over elements in $u cap V(X)$. In most cases, this will not be a problem, since $V(X)$ is transitive, so if $u in V(X) setminus X$, then $u cap V(X) = u$.
But if we consider any element $x$ of the base set $X$ (so $x cap V(X) = emptyset$) and an arbitrary $y in V(X)$, then $(V(X), in)$ 'believes' $forall w in x (w in y)$ vacuously, although this usually isn't true in our normal universe. I think this is suboptimal, since the goal should be proving valid formulas (in our usual set theoretic setting) by proving them inside $V(X)$ and $V(^* ! X)$, using the transfer principle and other tools.
I first tried the naive fix of just allowing assignments $a_1,...,a_n in V(X) setminus X$, but this does not handle nested quantifications, for example in the statement $forall x in X(forall z in x(z in y))$, where $y in V(X)$ is arbitrary and $X$ is our base set. Also, apart from when they are the range of a quantifier, we need to be able to assign individuals (relative to $V(X)$) to free variables.
It seems like we need to avoid any quantification over elements of rank $0$ to be able to infer truth of $varphi$ (in our set theoretic universe) from truth of $varphi$ in $(V(X), in)$. So, my questions are as follows:
$1.$ First, and foremost: Am I missing something? Is this an actual problem or just a misunderstanding?
$2.$ If not, why wasn't this mentioned in the texts I considered? Also, is there a simpler characterization of the formulas that will be 'misinterpreted' by $(V(X), in)$?
Thank you for your time.
logic set-theory model-theory nonstandard-analysis
edited Feb 3 at 1:48
Hanul Jeon
17.7k42881
asked Jan 30 at 20:57
user2103480user2103480
689616
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Good evening everybody,
at the moment I'm studying non-standard analysis, specifically the superstructure approach to it. This approximately works as described in chapter 3 of http://people.dm.unipi.it/dinasso/papers/20.pdf. So far I've mostly understood this construction, and also worked through the detailed construction in chapter 4.4 of Chang & Keisler's Model Theory. But there is one unmentioned detail that has been bugging me, concerning the interpretation of formulas in $V(X)$, the superstructure over a base set $X$.
One of the central points of nonstandard analysis is the transfer principle, which states that for a bounded quantifier formula $varphi (x_1,...,x_n)$, if $a_1,...,a_n in V(X)$, then $$(V(X), in) models varphi[a_1,...,a_n] iff (V(^* ! X), in) models varphi[^*a_1,...,{} ^*a_n].$$
Since we only interpret these formulas in $V(X)$, this means that when considering a bounded quantifier, say the quantifier in $forall w in u (w in v)$ (or, phrased differently, $u subseteq v$), the quantifier ranges only over elements in $u cap V(X)$. In most cases, this will not be a problem, since $V(X)$ is transitive, so if $u in V(X) setminus X$, then $u cap V(X) = u$.
But if we consider any element $x$ of the base set $X$ (so $x cap V(X) = emptyset$) and an arbitrary $y in V(X)$, then $(V(X), in)$ 'believes' $forall w in x (w in y)$ vacuously, although this usually isn't true in our normal universe. I think this is suboptimal, since the goal should be proving valid formulas (in our usual set theoretic setting) by proving them inside $V(X)$ and $V(^* ! X)$, using the transfer principle and other tools.
I first tried the naive fix of just allowing assignments $a_1,...,a_n in V(X) setminus X$, but this does not handle nested quantifications, for example in the statement $forall x in X(forall z in x(z in y))$, where $y in V(X)$ is arbitrary and $X$ is our base set. Also, apart from when they are the range of a quantifier, we need to be able to assign individuals (relative to $V(X)$) to free variables.
It seems like we need to avoid any quantification over elements of rank $0$ to be able to infer truth of $varphi$ (in our set theoretic universe) from truth of $varphi$ in $(V(X), in)$. So, my questions are as follows:
$1.$ First, and foremost: Am I missing something? Is this an actual problem or just a misunderstanding?
$2.$ If not, why wasn't this mentioned in the texts I considered? Also, is there a simpler characterization of the formulas that will be 'misinterpreted' by $(V(X), in)$?
Thank you for your time.
logic set-theory model-theory nonstandard-analysis
edited Feb 3 at 1:48
Hanul Jeon
17.7k42881
asked Jan 30 at 20:57
user2103480user2103480
689616
$endgroup$
Good evening everybody,
at the moment I'm studying non-standard analysis, specifically the superstructure approach to it. This approximately works as described in chapter 3 of http://people.dm.unipi.it/dinasso/papers/20.pdf. So far I've mostly understood this construction, and also worked through the detailed construction in chapter 4.4 of Chang & Keisler's Model Theory. But there is one unmentioned detail that has been bugging me, concerning the interpretation of formulas in $V(X)$, the superstructure over a base set $X$.
One of the central points of nonstandard analysis is the transfer principle, which states that for a bounded quantifier formula $varphi (x_1,...,x_n)$, if $a_1,...,a_n in V(X)$, then $$(V(X), in) models varphi[a_1,...,a_n] iff (V(^* ! X), in) models varphi[^*a_1,...,{} ^*a_n].$$
Since we only interpret these formulas in $V(X)$, this means that when considering a bounded quantifier, say the quantifier in $forall w in u (w in v)$ (or, phrased differently, $u subseteq v$), the quantifier ranges only over elements in $u cap V(X)$. In most cases, this will not be a problem, since $V(X)$ is transitive, so if $u in V(X) setminus X$, then $u cap V(X) = u$.
But if we consider any element $x$ of the base set $X$ (so $x cap V(X) = emptyset$) and an arbitrary $y in V(X)$, then $(V(X), in)$ 'believes' $forall w in x (w in y)$ vacuously, although this usually isn't true in our normal universe. I think this is suboptimal, since the goal should be proving valid formulas (in our usual set theoretic setting) by proving them inside $V(X)$ and $V(^* ! X)$, using the transfer principle and other tools.
I first tried the naive fix of just allowing assignments $a_1,...,a_n in V(X) setminus X$, but this does not handle nested quantifications, for example in the statement $forall x in X(forall z in x(z in y))$, where $y in V(X)$ is arbitrary and $X$ is our base set. Also, apart from when they are the range of a quantifier, we need to be able to assign individuals (relative to $V(X)$) to free variables.
It seems like we need to avoid any quantification over elements of rank $0$ to be able to infer truth of $varphi$ (in our set theoretic universe) from truth of $varphi$ in $(V(X), in)$. So, my questions are as follows:
$1.$ First, and foremost: Am I missing something? Is this an actual problem or just a misunderstanding?
$2.$ If not, why wasn't this mentioned in the texts I considered? Also, is there a simpler characterization of the formulas that will be 'misinterpreted' by $(V(X), in)$?
Thank you for your time.
logic set-theory model-theory nonstandard-analysis
logic set-theory model-theory nonstandard-analysis
edited Feb 3 at 1:48
Hanul Jeon
17.7k42881
asked Jan 30 at 20:57
user2103480user2103480
689616
edited Feb 3 at 1:48
Hanul Jeon
17.7k42881
asked Jan 30 at 20:57
user2103480user2103480
689616
edited Feb 3 at 1:48
Hanul Jeon
17.7k42881
edited Feb 3 at 1:48
Hanul Jeon
17.7k42881
edited Feb 3 at 1:48
Hanul Jeon
17.7k42881
17.7k42881
asked Jan 30 at 20:57
user2103480user2103480
689616
asked Jan 30 at 20:57
user2103480user2103480
689616
asked Jan 30 at 20:57
user2103480user2103480
689616
689616
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This has a lot to do with language. $V(X)$ is an $mathcal{L}$-structure of language $mathcal{L}={=,in,V(X)}$ where $"="$ and $"in"$ are predicates and $V(X)$ is a set of constants.
For $V(X)$ to be an $mathcal{L}$-structure you need an interpretation of your language. So for every constant $xin V(X)$ we need to associate an element $yin V(X)$, clearly we can pick $y=x$. For our predicates $"in"$ and $"="$ we have to a find subsets $M_{in},M_{=}subset V(X)times V(X)$. We then say for $"ain b"$ or $"c=d"$ are true if and only if $(a,b)in M_{in}$ and $(c,d)in M_{=}$ respectively. Again you can pick the obvious subsets $M_{=}={(x,x)in V(X)times V(X)$ and $M_{in}={(x,y)in V(X)times V(X):xin y}$. These symbols along with logical symbols as $rightarrow,wedge,neg,vee,forall$, etc are the only symbols we may use to write statements.
The statement $(forall xin X)(forall zin x)(zin y)$ where $y$ is some constant would be rewritten as
$$(forall x)(xin Xrightarrow (forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y))$$
where $y$ and $X$ are constants.
Now the question remains, is this formula true. This does depend on your interpretation of the $"in"$ predicate. But if you interpret it in such a way that $(x,y)notin M_{in}$ for all $yin X$, then this is a true statement. $zin x$ is not a true for $xin x$, so $(forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y)$ is true by definition of $rightarrow$ This then makes $(forall x)(xin Xrightarrow (forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y))$ true again due to the definition of $rightarrow$.
Basically this statement is true in the same way that the statement: "every element of the empty set is a vampire" is true. You will never be able to avoid these kind of silly true formula's, they are just a consequence of writing a rigorous logical language, but they are true in both $V(X)$ and set theory.
answered Feb 7 at 20:26
Floris ClaassensFloris Claassens
1,33229
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I you are interested I actually wrote my master thesis on non-standard analysis and give a very basic introduction into language, $mathcal{L}$-structures and models and how they interact with superstructures: universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/science/mi/…
$endgroup$
– Floris Claassens
Feb 7 at 20:29
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3094102%2fvacuous-truths-in-superstructure-approach-to-nonstandard-analysis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This has a lot to do with language. $V(X)$ is an $mathcal{L}$-structure of language $mathcal{L}={=,in,V(X)}$ where $"="$ and $"in"$ are predicates and $V(X)$ is a set of constants.
For $V(X)$ to be an $mathcal{L}$-structure you need an interpretation of your language. So for every constant $xin V(X)$ we need to associate an element $yin V(X)$, clearly we can pick $y=x$. For our predicates $"in"$ and $"="$ we have to a find subsets $M_{in},M_{=}subset V(X)times V(X)$. We then say for $"ain b"$ or $"c=d"$ are true if and only if $(a,b)in M_{in}$ and $(c,d)in M_{=}$ respectively. Again you can pick the obvious subsets $M_{=}={(x,x)in V(X)times V(X)$ and $M_{in}={(x,y)in V(X)times V(X):xin y}$. These symbols along with logical symbols as $rightarrow,wedge,neg,vee,forall$, etc are the only symbols we may use to write statements.
The statement $(forall xin X)(forall zin x)(zin y)$ where $y$ is some constant would be rewritten as
$$(forall x)(xin Xrightarrow (forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y))$$
where $y$ and $X$ are constants.
Now the question remains, is this formula true. This does depend on your interpretation of the $"in"$ predicate. But if you interpret it in such a way that $(x,y)notin M_{in}$ for all $yin X$, then this is a true statement. $zin x$ is not a true for $xin x$, so $(forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y)$ is true by definition of $rightarrow$ This then makes $(forall x)(xin Xrightarrow (forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y))$ true again due to the definition of $rightarrow$.
Basically this statement is true in the same way that the statement: "every element of the empty set is a vampire" is true. You will never be able to avoid these kind of silly true formula's, they are just a consequence of writing a rigorous logical language, but they are true in both $V(X)$ and set theory.
answered Feb 7 at 20:26
Floris ClaassensFloris Claassens
1,33229
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I you are interested I actually wrote my master thesis on non-standard analysis and give a very basic introduction into language, $mathcal{L}$-structures and models and how they interact with superstructures: universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/science/mi/…
$endgroup$
– Floris Claassens
Feb 7 at 20:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This has a lot to do with language. $V(X)$ is an $mathcal{L}$-structure of language $mathcal{L}={=,in,V(X)}$ where $"="$ and $"in"$ are predicates and $V(X)$ is a set of constants.
For $V(X)$ to be an $mathcal{L}$-structure you need an interpretation of your language. So for every constant $xin V(X)$ we need to associate an element $yin V(X)$, clearly we can pick $y=x$. For our predicates $"in"$ and $"="$ we have to a find subsets $M_{in},M_{=}subset V(X)times V(X)$. We then say for $"ain b"$ or $"c=d"$ are true if and only if $(a,b)in M_{in}$ and $(c,d)in M_{=}$ respectively. Again you can pick the obvious subsets $M_{=}={(x,x)in V(X)times V(X)$ and $M_{in}={(x,y)in V(X)times V(X):xin y}$. These symbols along with logical symbols as $rightarrow,wedge,neg,vee,forall$, etc are the only symbols we may use to write statements.
The statement $(forall xin X)(forall zin x)(zin y)$ where $y$ is some constant would be rewritten as
$$(forall x)(xin Xrightarrow (forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y))$$
where $y$ and $X$ are constants.
Now the question remains, is this formula true. This does depend on your interpretation of the $"in"$ predicate. But if you interpret it in such a way that $(x,y)notin M_{in}$ for all $yin X$, then this is a true statement. $zin x$ is not a true for $xin x$, so $(forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y)$ is true by definition of $rightarrow$ This then makes $(forall x)(xin Xrightarrow (forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y))$ true again due to the definition of $rightarrow$.
Basically this statement is true in the same way that the statement: "every element of the empty set is a vampire" is true. You will never be able to avoid these kind of silly true formula's, they are just a consequence of writing a rigorous logical language, but they are true in both $V(X)$ and set theory.
answered Feb 7 at 20:26
Floris ClaassensFloris Claassens
1,33229
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I you are interested I actually wrote my master thesis on non-standard analysis and give a very basic introduction into language, $mathcal{L}$-structures and models and how they interact with superstructures: universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/science/mi/…
$endgroup$
– Floris Claassens
Feb 7 at 20:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This has a lot to do with language. $V(X)$ is an $mathcal{L}$-structure of language $mathcal{L}={=,in,V(X)}$ where $"="$ and $"in"$ are predicates and $V(X)$ is a set of constants.
For $V(X)$ to be an $mathcal{L}$-structure you need an interpretation of your language. So for every constant $xin V(X)$ we need to associate an element $yin V(X)$, clearly we can pick $y=x$. For our predicates $"in"$ and $"="$ we have to a find subsets $M_{in},M_{=}subset V(X)times V(X)$. We then say for $"ain b"$ or $"c=d"$ are true if and only if $(a,b)in M_{in}$ and $(c,d)in M_{=}$ respectively. Again you can pick the obvious subsets $M_{=}={(x,x)in V(X)times V(X)$ and $M_{in}={(x,y)in V(X)times V(X):xin y}$. These symbols along with logical symbols as $rightarrow,wedge,neg,vee,forall$, etc are the only symbols we may use to write statements.
The statement $(forall xin X)(forall zin x)(zin y)$ where $y$ is some constant would be rewritten as
$$(forall x)(xin Xrightarrow (forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y))$$
where $y$ and $X$ are constants.
Now the question remains, is this formula true. This does depend on your interpretation of the $"in"$ predicate. But if you interpret it in such a way that $(x,y)notin M_{in}$ for all $yin X$, then this is a true statement. $zin x$ is not a true for $xin x$, so $(forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y)$ is true by definition of $rightarrow$ This then makes $(forall x)(xin Xrightarrow (forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y))$ true again due to the definition of $rightarrow$.
Basically this statement is true in the same way that the statement: "every element of the empty set is a vampire" is true. You will never be able to avoid these kind of silly true formula's, they are just a consequence of writing a rigorous logical language, but they are true in both $V(X)$ and set theory.
answered Feb 7 at 20:26
Floris ClaassensFloris Claassens
1,33229
$endgroup$
This has a lot to do with language. $V(X)$ is an $mathcal{L}$-structure of language $mathcal{L}={=,in,V(X)}$ where $"="$ and $"in"$ are predicates and $V(X)$ is a set of constants.
For $V(X)$ to be an $mathcal{L}$-structure you need an interpretation of your language. So for every constant $xin V(X)$ we need to associate an element $yin V(X)$, clearly we can pick $y=x$. For our predicates $"in"$ and $"="$ we have to a find subsets $M_{in},M_{=}subset V(X)times V(X)$. We then say for $"ain b"$ or $"c=d"$ are true if and only if $(a,b)in M_{in}$ and $(c,d)in M_{=}$ respectively. Again you can pick the obvious subsets $M_{=}={(x,x)in V(X)times V(X)$ and $M_{in}={(x,y)in V(X)times V(X):xin y}$. These symbols along with logical symbols as $rightarrow,wedge,neg,vee,forall$, etc are the only symbols we may use to write statements.
The statement $(forall xin X)(forall zin x)(zin y)$ where $y$ is some constant would be rewritten as
$$(forall x)(xin Xrightarrow (forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y))$$
where $y$ and $X$ are constants.
Now the question remains, is this formula true. This does depend on your interpretation of the $"in"$ predicate. But if you interpret it in such a way that $(x,y)notin M_{in}$ for all $yin X$, then this is a true statement. $zin x$ is not a true for $xin x$, so $(forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y)$ is true by definition of $rightarrow$ This then makes $(forall x)(xin Xrightarrow (forall z)(zin xrightarrow zin y))$ true again due to the definition of $rightarrow$.
Basically this statement is true in the same way that the statement: "every element of the empty set is a vampire" is true. You will never be able to avoid these kind of silly true formula's, they are just a consequence of writing a rigorous logical language, but they are true in both $V(X)$ and set theory.
answered Feb 7 at 20:26
Floris ClaassensFloris Claassens
1,33229
answered Feb 7 at 20:26
Floris ClaassensFloris Claassens
1,33229
answered Feb 7 at 20:26
Floris ClaassensFloris Claassens
1,33229
answered Feb 7 at 20:26
Floris ClaassensFloris Claassens
1,33229
1,33229
1
$begingroup$
I you are interested I actually wrote my master thesis on non-standard analysis and give a very basic introduction into language, $mathcal{L}$-structures and models and how they interact with superstructures: universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/science/mi/…
$endgroup$
– Floris Claassens
Feb 7 at 20:29
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I you are interested I actually wrote my master thesis on non-standard analysis and give a very basic introduction into language, $mathcal{L}$-structures and models and how they interact with superstructures: universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/science/mi/…
$endgroup$
– Floris Claassens
Feb 7 at 20:29
1
1
$begingroup$
I you are interested I actually wrote my master thesis on non-standard analysis and give a very basic introduction into language, $mathcal{L}$-structures and models and how they interact with superstructures: universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/science/mi/…
$endgroup$
– Floris Claassens
Feb 7 at 20:29
$begingroup$
I you are interested I actually wrote my master thesis on non-standard analysis and give a very basic introduction into language, $mathcal{L}$-structures and models and how they interact with superstructures: universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/science/mi/…
$endgroup$
– Floris Claassens
Feb 7 at 20:29
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3094102%2fvacuous-truths-in-superstructure-approach-to-nonstandard-analysis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
