[FOM] counted sets
Aatu.Koskensilta at uta.fi
Tue Aug 25 12:05:07 EDT 2009
Quoting Bill Taylor <W.Taylor at math.canterbury.ac.nz>:
> As I noted, the set of all recursive ordinals is necessarily non-recursive!
Well, it's not just non-recursive, it's Pi-1-1 complete.
> There can be no effective notation for it, though there can be for any lesser
> ordinal. The thing is, there is no "uniform" way of notating the ordinals
> less than it - every so often one must adopt a whole new procedure,
> largely unrelated to but engulfing the prior ones.
Sure there is, Kleene's O. Of course, what you mean is that there's no
/univalent/ ordinal notation system for all ordinals < omega_1^CK,
while there is for any ordinal < omega_1^CK. (A notation system is
univalent if notations are unique.)
> Hartley Davidson's book has a nice little section on it.
Surely you mean Hartley Rogers?
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta at uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
More information about the FOM