Compactness Theorem- Why not Counterexample?confusion regarding compactness theoremCompactness Theorem ApplicationCompactness theorem and Tychonoff theoremLogic: compactness theorem, an exampleCompactness of Propositional LogicTwo questions about first order theories having only finite models.Why does the compactness theorem not apply to infinite subsets?Models of first-order logic and cardinalities of the domainCompactness theorem for sentential logic

Circle divided by lines between a blue dots

As an employer, can I compel my employees to vote?

What are the end bytes of *.docx file format

Where are they calling from?

Manager encourages me to take day of sick leave instead of PTO, what's in it for him?

Can the U.S. president make military decisions without consulting anyone?

Runaway-argument error message when line break occurs inside argument of a macro

How does one calculate the distribution of the Matt Colville way of rolling stats?

How to influence manager to not schedule team meetings during lunch?

Can Northern Ireland's border issue be solved by repartition?

Is It Possible to Have Different Sea Levels, Eventually Causing New Landforms to Appear?

Pseudo Game of Cups in Python

Is there any actual security benefit to restricting foreign IPs?

What do you do if you have developments on your paper during the long peer review process?

I reverse the source code, you negate the output!

Leaving a job that I just took based on false promise of a raise. What do I tell future interviewers?

How to make interviewee comfortable interviewing in lounge chairs

Safely hang a mirror that does not have hooks

Why are some of the Stunts in The Expanse RPG labelled 'Core'?

Pandas aggregate with dynamic column names

Do the villains know Batman has no superpowers?

When does removing Goblin Warchief affect its cost reduction ability?

Would Taiwan and China's dispute be solved if Taiwan gave up being the Republic of China?

Which museums have artworks of all four ninja turtles' namesakes?



Compactness Theorem- Why not Counterexample?


confusion regarding compactness theoremCompactness Theorem ApplicationCompactness theorem and Tychonoff theoremLogic: compactness theorem, an exampleCompactness of Propositional LogicTwo questions about first order theories having only finite models.Why does the compactness theorem not apply to infinite subsets?Models of first-order logic and cardinalities of the domainCompactness theorem for sentential logic






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2












$begingroup$


The compactness theorem states that if every finite subset of a set of logical statements is consistent, then the overall set of statements is consistent.



So, why is the following set of statements (each of which could be formalized under the rules of predicate logic) about a given universe not a counterexample?



  • There exists at least one distinct object in our universe.

  • There exist at least two distinct objects in our universe.

  • There exist at least three distinct objects in our universe.

  • There exist at least four distinct objects in our universe.

...



  • There exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe.

Any finite subset of these statements is consistent, yet the overall set is inconsistent. Is this not a counterexample because the last sentence cannot be formalized in first-order predicate logic?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    How do you formalize "there exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe"?
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    8 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The last statement is not a first-order sentence.
    $endgroup$
    – Jason
    8 hours ago

















2












$begingroup$


The compactness theorem states that if every finite subset of a set of logical statements is consistent, then the overall set of statements is consistent.



So, why is the following set of statements (each of which could be formalized under the rules of predicate logic) about a given universe not a counterexample?



  • There exists at least one distinct object in our universe.

  • There exist at least two distinct objects in our universe.

  • There exist at least three distinct objects in our universe.

  • There exist at least four distinct objects in our universe.

...



  • There exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe.

Any finite subset of these statements is consistent, yet the overall set is inconsistent. Is this not a counterexample because the last sentence cannot be formalized in first-order predicate logic?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    How do you formalize "there exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe"?
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    8 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The last statement is not a first-order sentence.
    $endgroup$
    – Jason
    8 hours ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$


The compactness theorem states that if every finite subset of a set of logical statements is consistent, then the overall set of statements is consistent.



So, why is the following set of statements (each of which could be formalized under the rules of predicate logic) about a given universe not a counterexample?



  • There exists at least one distinct object in our universe.

  • There exist at least two distinct objects in our universe.

  • There exist at least three distinct objects in our universe.

  • There exist at least four distinct objects in our universe.

...



  • There exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe.

Any finite subset of these statements is consistent, yet the overall set is inconsistent. Is this not a counterexample because the last sentence cannot be formalized in first-order predicate logic?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




The compactness theorem states that if every finite subset of a set of logical statements is consistent, then the overall set of statements is consistent.



So, why is the following set of statements (each of which could be formalized under the rules of predicate logic) about a given universe not a counterexample?



  • There exists at least one distinct object in our universe.

  • There exist at least two distinct objects in our universe.

  • There exist at least three distinct objects in our universe.

  • There exist at least four distinct objects in our universe.

...



  • There exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe.

Any finite subset of these statements is consistent, yet the overall set is inconsistent. Is this not a counterexample because the last sentence cannot be formalized in first-order predicate logic?







logic






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 8 hours ago









George BentleyGeorge Bentley

454 bronze badges




454 bronze badges










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    How do you formalize "there exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe"?
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    8 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The last statement is not a first-order sentence.
    $endgroup$
    – Jason
    8 hours ago












  • 3




    $begingroup$
    How do you formalize "there exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe"?
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    8 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The last statement is not a first-order sentence.
    $endgroup$
    – Jason
    8 hours ago







3




3




$begingroup$
How do you formalize "there exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe"?
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
How do you formalize "there exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe"?
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
8 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
The last statement is not a first-order sentence.
$endgroup$
– Jason
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
The last statement is not a first-order sentence.
$endgroup$
– Jason
8 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















8














$begingroup$


(each of which could be formalized under the rules of predicate logic)




...




There exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe.




Are you sure that last statement is actually appropriately expressible? Indeed, the compactness theorem shows that it isn't.



(In other words, the very last line of your post is exactly right.)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$

















    Your Answer








    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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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
    );



    );














    draft saved

    draft discarded
















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3361395%2fcompactness-theorem-why-not-counterexample%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









    8














    $begingroup$


    (each of which could be formalized under the rules of predicate logic)




    ...




    There exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe.




    Are you sure that last statement is actually appropriately expressible? Indeed, the compactness theorem shows that it isn't.



    (In other words, the very last line of your post is exactly right.)






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



















      8














      $begingroup$


      (each of which could be formalized under the rules of predicate logic)




      ...




      There exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe.




      Are you sure that last statement is actually appropriately expressible? Indeed, the compactness theorem shows that it isn't.



      (In other words, the very last line of your post is exactly right.)






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        8














        8










        8







        $begingroup$


        (each of which could be formalized under the rules of predicate logic)




        ...




        There exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe.




        Are you sure that last statement is actually appropriately expressible? Indeed, the compactness theorem shows that it isn't.



        (In other words, the very last line of your post is exactly right.)






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$




        (each of which could be formalized under the rules of predicate logic)




        ...




        There exist finitely many distinct objects in our universe.




        Are you sure that last statement is actually appropriately expressible? Indeed, the compactness theorem shows that it isn't.



        (In other words, the very last line of your post is exactly right.)







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 8 hours ago









        Noah SchweberNoah Schweber

        141k10 gold badges170 silver badges320 bronze badges




        141k10 gold badges170 silver badges320 bronze badges































            draft saved

            draft discarded















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3361395%2fcompactness-theorem-why-not-counterexample%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її