ISBN10: 0691058539, ISBN13: 9780691058535, [publisher: Princeton University Press] Hardcover New Book. Shipped from UK. Established seller since 2000.
[Fairford, GLOS, United Kingdom] [Publication Year: 2004]

ISBN10: 0691058539, ISBN13: 9780691058535, [publisher: Princeton University Press] Hardcover New Book. Shipped from UK. Established seller since 2000.
[Wood Dale, IL, U.S.A.] [Publication Year: 2004]

Princeton University Press 3/12/2004 12: 00: 00 AM Hardcover PLEASE NOTE, WE DO NOT SHIP TO DENMARK. New Book. Shipped from UK in 4 to 14 days. Established seller since 2000. Please note we cannot offer an expedited shipping service from the UK.

Hardback. New. ISBN 0691058539 9780691058535 [GB]

Princeton University Press 2004 Hard cover New Num Pages: 256 pages, black & white illustrations. BIC Classification: HPL; PBCD. Category: (P) Professional & Vocational; (U) Tertiary Education (US: College). Dimension: 229 x 152 x 15. Weight in Grams: 514. 2004. Hardback.....We ship daily from our Bookshop.

ISBN10: 0691058539, ISBN13: 9780691058535, [publisher: Princeton University Press] Hardcover nach der Bestellung gedruckt Neuware - Printed after ordering - LÃ wenheim's theorem reflects a critical point in the history of mathematical logic, for it marks the birth of model theory--that is, the part of logic that concerns the relationship between formal theories and their models. However, while the original proofs of other, comparably significant theorems are well understood, this is not the case with LÃ wenheim's theorem. For example, the very result that scholars attribute to LÃ wenheim today is not the one that Skolem--a logician raised in the algebraic tradition, like LÃ wenheim--appears to have attributed to him. In The Birth of Model Theory, Calixto Badesa provides both the first sustained, book-length analysis of LÃ wenheim's proof and a detailed description of the theoretical framework--and, in particular, of the algebraic tradition--that made the theorem possible.Badesa's three main conclusions amount to a completely new interpretation of the proof, one that sharply contradicts the core of modern scholarship on the topic. First, LÃ wenheim did not use an infinitary language to prove his theorem; second, the functional interpretation of LÃ wenheim's normal form is anachronistic, and inappropriate for reconstructing the proof; and third, LÃ wenheim did not aim to prove the theorem's weakest version but the stronger version ...
Show/Hide image