Triple

Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).

Phrase: Löwenheim–Skolem theorem | Statement: [Skolem paradox, relatedTo, Löwenheim–Skolem theorem]

Target entity: Löwenheim–Skolem theorem
Context triple: [Skolem paradox, relatedTo, Löwenheim–Skolem theorem]

• A. Löwenheim–Skolem theorem (via additional arguments) chosen
  The Löwenheim–Skolem theorem is a fundamental result in model theory stating that any first-order theory with an infinite model has models of all infinite cardinalities, leading to the so-called Skolem paradox about the existence of countable models of set theory.
• B. Tarski–Mostowski–Robinson theorem
  The Tarski–Mostowski–Robinson theorem is a fundamental result in model theory that characterizes when a class of structures is first-order axiomatizable, linking definability properties with closure under ultraproducts and isomorphisms.
• C. Tarski's undefinability theorem
  Tarski's undefinability theorem is a fundamental result in mathematical logic showing that, in sufficiently strong formal systems, the notion of truth for the language of the system cannot be defined within that same language.
• D. Łoś–Tarski preservation theorem
  The Łoś–Tarski preservation theorem is a fundamental result in model theory that characterizes when a first-order sentence is preserved under substructures in terms of its equivalence to a universal sentence.
• E. Herbrand's theorem
  Herbrand's theorem is a fundamental result in mathematical logic and proof theory that characterizes the validity of first-order formulas via finite sets of ground instances, forming a basis for automated theorem proving.
• F. None of above.
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.