Variable numerical quantifiers
$begingroup$
In first order logic with equality, it is easy to define numerical quantifiers such as "there exist exactly two x such that...", or "there exist at least six x such that...". I am trying to develop a logic, more expressive than bare first order logic with equality, but not as expressive as set theory or second order logic, where there can be variable numerical quantifiers. One could say, for instance, that there are 3n+1 x such that Px, where the n is itself a variable that can be quantified over. Has anyone pursued this idea? In other words, is there any paper or book where someone has taken this idea seriously and pursued it?
logic
asked Dec 11 '13 at 8:16
user107952user107952
2,65021031
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In first order logic with equality, it is easy to define numerical quantifiers such as "there exist exactly two x such that...", or "there exist at least six x such that...". I am trying to develop a logic, more expressive than bare first order logic with equality, but not as expressive as set theory or second order logic, where there can be variable numerical quantifiers. One could say, for instance, that there are 3n+1 x such that Px, where the n is itself a variable that can be quantified over. Has anyone pursued this idea? In other words, is there any paper or book where someone has taken this idea seriously and pursued it?
logic
asked Dec 11 '13 at 8:16
user107952user107952
2,65021031
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Isn't it the case that set theory is formalized in first order logic? If so how can it be that set theory is more expressive than FOL?
$endgroup$
– Trismegistos
Dec 11 '13 at 9:21
$begingroup$
I mean, set theory is more expressive than first-order logic with equality by itself.
$endgroup$
– user107952
Dec 11 '13 at 11:12
$begingroup$
How theory described by FOL can be more expressive than FOL? That is contradiction.
$endgroup$
– Trismegistos
Dec 11 '13 at 12:40
$begingroup$
Anyway, my question about variable numerical quantifiers remains unanswered. Is there a paper or text that talks about this?
$endgroup$
– user107952
Dec 11 '13 at 20:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In first order logic with equality, it is easy to define numerical quantifiers such as "there exist exactly two x such that...", or "there exist at least six x such that...". I am trying to develop a logic, more expressive than bare first order logic with equality, but not as expressive as set theory or second order logic, where there can be variable numerical quantifiers. One could say, for instance, that there are 3n+1 x such that Px, where the n is itself a variable that can be quantified over. Has anyone pursued this idea? In other words, is there any paper or book where someone has taken this idea seriously and pursued it?
logic
asked Dec 11 '13 at 8:16
user107952user107952
2,65021031
$endgroup$
In first order logic with equality, it is easy to define numerical quantifiers such as "there exist exactly two x such that...", or "there exist at least six x such that...". I am trying to develop a logic, more expressive than bare first order logic with equality, but not as expressive as set theory or second order logic, where there can be variable numerical quantifiers. One could say, for instance, that there are 3n+1 x such that Px, where the n is itself a variable that can be quantified over. Has anyone pursued this idea? In other words, is there any paper or book where someone has taken this idea seriously and pursued it?
logic
logic
asked Dec 11 '13 at 8:16
user107952user107952
2,65021031
asked Dec 11 '13 at 8:16
user107952user107952
2,65021031
asked Dec 11 '13 at 8:16
user107952user107952
2,65021031
asked Dec 11 '13 at 8:16
user107952user107952
2,65021031
asked Dec 11 '13 at 8:16
user107952user107952
2,65021031
2,65021031
$begingroup$
Isn't it the case that set theory is formalized in first order logic? If so how can it be that set theory is more expressive than FOL?
$endgroup$
– Trismegistos
Dec 11 '13 at 9:21
$begingroup$
I mean, set theory is more expressive than first-order logic with equality by itself.
$endgroup$
– user107952
Dec 11 '13 at 11:12
$begingroup$
How theory described by FOL can be more expressive than FOL? That is contradiction.
$endgroup$
– Trismegistos
Dec 11 '13 at 12:40
$begingroup$
Anyway, my question about variable numerical quantifiers remains unanswered. Is there a paper or text that talks about this?
$endgroup$
– user107952
Dec 11 '13 at 20:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Isn't it the case that set theory is formalized in first order logic? If so how can it be that set theory is more expressive than FOL?
$endgroup$
– Trismegistos
Dec 11 '13 at 9:21
$begingroup$
I mean, set theory is more expressive than first-order logic with equality by itself.
$endgroup$
– user107952
Dec 11 '13 at 11:12
$begingroup$
How theory described by FOL can be more expressive than FOL? That is contradiction.
$endgroup$
– Trismegistos
Dec 11 '13 at 12:40
$begingroup$
Anyway, my question about variable numerical quantifiers remains unanswered. Is there a paper or text that talks about this?
$endgroup$
– user107952
Dec 11 '13 at 20:21
$begingroup$
Isn't it the case that set theory is formalized in first order logic? If so how can it be that set theory is more expressive than FOL?
$endgroup$
– Trismegistos
Dec 11 '13 at 9:21
$begingroup$
Isn't it the case that set theory is formalized in first order logic? If so how can it be that set theory is more expressive than FOL?
$endgroup$
– Trismegistos
Dec 11 '13 at 9:21
$begingroup$
I mean, set theory is more expressive than first-order logic with equality by itself.
$endgroup$
– user107952
Dec 11 '13 at 11:12
$begingroup$
I mean, set theory is more expressive than first-order logic with equality by itself.
$endgroup$
– user107952
Dec 11 '13 at 11:12
$begingroup$
How theory described by FOL can be more expressive than FOL? That is contradiction.
$endgroup$
– Trismegistos
Dec 11 '13 at 12:40
$begingroup$
How theory described by FOL can be more expressive than FOL? That is contradiction.
$endgroup$
– Trismegistos
Dec 11 '13 at 12:40
$begingroup$
Anyway, my question about variable numerical quantifiers remains unanswered. Is there a paper or text that talks about this?
$endgroup$
– user107952
Dec 11 '13 at 20:21
$begingroup$
Anyway, my question about variable numerical quantifiers remains unanswered. Is there a paper or text that talks about this?
$endgroup$
– user107952
Dec 11 '13 at 20:21
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
See Jouko Vaananen, Models and Games (2011), Ch.10 : Generalized Quantifiers.
See page 284 :
Definition 10.1 A weak (generalized) quantifier is a mapping $Q$ which maps every non-empty set $A$ to a subset of $mathcal P(A)$. A weak (generalized) quantifier on a domain $A$ is any subset of $mathcal P(A)$.
See page 285 :
Example 10.2
1 . The existential quantifier ...
3 . The counting quantifier $exists^{ge n}$ ...
answered May 13 '14 at 16:45
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
65.2k448112
$endgroup$
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%2f602509%2fvariable-numerical-quantifiers%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
$begingroup$
See Jouko Vaananen, Models and Games (2011), Ch.10 : Generalized Quantifiers.
See page 284 :
Definition 10.1 A weak (generalized) quantifier is a mapping $Q$ which maps every non-empty set $A$ to a subset of $mathcal P(A)$. A weak (generalized) quantifier on a domain $A$ is any subset of $mathcal P(A)$.
See page 285 :
Example 10.2
1 . The existential quantifier ...
3 . The counting quantifier $exists^{ge n}$ ...
answered May 13 '14 at 16:45
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
65.2k448112
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
See Jouko Vaananen, Models and Games (2011), Ch.10 : Generalized Quantifiers.
See page 284 :
Definition 10.1 A weak (generalized) quantifier is a mapping $Q$ which maps every non-empty set $A$ to a subset of $mathcal P(A)$. A weak (generalized) quantifier on a domain $A$ is any subset of $mathcal P(A)$.
See page 285 :
Example 10.2
1 . The existential quantifier ...
3 . The counting quantifier $exists^{ge n}$ ...
answered May 13 '14 at 16:45
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
65.2k448112
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
See Jouko Vaananen, Models and Games (2011), Ch.10 : Generalized Quantifiers.
See page 284 :
Definition 10.1 A weak (generalized) quantifier is a mapping $Q$ which maps every non-empty set $A$ to a subset of $mathcal P(A)$. A weak (generalized) quantifier on a domain $A$ is any subset of $mathcal P(A)$.
See page 285 :
Example 10.2
1 . The existential quantifier ...
3 . The counting quantifier $exists^{ge n}$ ...
answered May 13 '14 at 16:45
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
65.2k448112
$endgroup$
See Jouko Vaananen, Models and Games (2011), Ch.10 : Generalized Quantifiers.
See page 284 :
Definition 10.1 A weak (generalized) quantifier is a mapping $Q$ which maps every non-empty set $A$ to a subset of $mathcal P(A)$. A weak (generalized) quantifier on a domain $A$ is any subset of $mathcal P(A)$.
See page 285 :
Example 10.2
1 . The existential quantifier ...
3 . The counting quantifier $exists^{ge n}$ ...
answered May 13 '14 at 16:45
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
65.2k448112
edited Dec 8 '18 at 20:05
answered May 13 '14 at 16:45
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
65.2k448112
answered May 13 '14 at 16:45
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
65.2k448112
answered May 13 '14 at 16:45
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
65.2k448112
65.2k448112
add a comment |
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%2f602509%2fvariable-numerical-quantifiers%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
$begingroup$
Isn't it the case that set theory is formalized in first order logic? If so how can it be that set theory is more expressive than FOL?
$endgroup$
– Trismegistos
Dec 11 '13 at 9:21
$begingroup$
I mean, set theory is more expressive than first-order logic with equality by itself.
$endgroup$
– user107952
Dec 11 '13 at 11:12
$begingroup$
How theory described by FOL can be more expressive than FOL? That is contradiction.
$endgroup$
– Trismegistos
Dec 11 '13 at 12:40
$begingroup$
Anyway, my question about variable numerical quantifiers remains unanswered. Is there a paper or text that talks about this?
$endgroup$
– user107952
Dec 11 '13 at 20:21