Re: theorems/problems with lots of quantifiers
From: Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta_at_xortec.fi)
Date: 09/07/04
- Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Measuring the strength of a theory"
- Previous message: 3.14159: "Re: Measuring the strength of a theory"
- In reply to: Mitch Harris: "theorems/problems with lots of quantifiers"
- Next in thread: Tim Mellor: "Re: theorems/problems with lots of quantifiers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:58:55 +0300
Mitch Harris wrote:
> Most mathematical theorems and conjectures seem to have low quantifier
> depth, that is, the nesting of quantifiers is not very deep.
>
> However, I would like to have some examples of not too obscure, fairly
> accessible problems (conjectures or thms) where it -is- nested deeply.
You need to specify what sort of language you wish these conjectures or
theorems to be expressed in or alternatively what sort of objects do you
accept quantification over. All arithmetical problems, for example, can
be expressed using just one universal quantifier binding a function
variable and one existential quantifier binding a number variable.
Obviously this is not what you're after.
-- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xortec.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
- Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Measuring the strength of a theory"
- Previous message: 3.14159: "Re: Measuring the strength of a theory"
- In reply to: Mitch Harris: "theorems/problems with lots of quantifiers"
- Next in thread: Tim Mellor: "Re: theorems/problems with lots of quantifiers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|