The "classical classical" is deliberate, as explained in the footnote.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 8:12 PM David A. Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Feb 22, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Benoit <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I uploaded yesterday a preprint to the arXiv titled "Independence > questions in a finite axiom-schematization of first-order logic" ( > https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.10383). > > I just briefly skimmed it & it's really interesting! Thanks for writing it! > > I think we should modify some set.mm comments to specifically cite this > work. > At the least, modifying some of the axiom statements (like ax-11) to note > that they've > been proven (partially) independent & then citing this paper makes sense. > Benoit: If you have suggestions, or even better pull requests, that'd be > great. > > A nit: in the introduction we see "classical classical" in: > > In this article, “first-order logic” means classical classical1 > one-sorted first-order logic with equality and no terms. > But that's a trivial text error & doesn't take away the quality of the > result. > > --- David A. Wheeler > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Metamath" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/2D0AB54B-942F-4ECD-907D-0E6439EC654D%40dwheeler.com > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metamath" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/CAFXXJSszDNd8SORKsM-8Nm1gdjfH6KASvWhBAR-fvib2gfJ5Gg%40mail.gmail.com.
