= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DaFranker comments on Second-Order Logic: The Controversy - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (188)
I fail to see how this is evidence of Nonsecondorderizability of some possible sentences.
There is no known trick to encode all sentences expressible in higher-order logics into first-order logic, but there is such a trick to encode all sentences expressible in higher-order logics in second-order logic.
The trick in question is described in the SEP article. Doesn't that suffice as a reference and starting point for studying the notion that second-order logic can encode higher-order logics?
i misread it XD trhanks for your help