553 reputation
138
bio website comp.nus.edu.sg/~a0078129
location Singapore
age
visits member for 3 years, 3 months
seen 43 mins ago

1d
comment A question regarding strong cardinals and measure sequence
@Golshani: I just realized that $E'\not \in Ult(V,E')$ as otherwise $i_{E'}(\kappa)$ will have same cardinality as $i_{E'}(\kappa^+)$ computed in $Ult(V,E')$ which is impossible. (Sorry I've been out of Internet)
Aug
22
comment A question regarding strong cardinals and measure sequence
Maybe I'm still missing something easy, but in showing $u_j\restriction \gamma=u_i\restriction \gamma$ we need $u_j\restriction \beta \in M'$ for all $\beta<\gamma$. How do you see that $u_j\restriction \beta \in M'$ or equivalently $u_i\restriction \beta \in N$ (the length of this derived sequence of ultrafilters using $i$ might be shorter?) or equivalently $u_j\restriction \beta \in range(k)$ where $k$ is the map from $M'$ to $M$? Thanks in advance!
Aug
21
comment A question regarding strong cardinals and measure sequence
Sorry you are right. I was confusing myself with the extenders of cardinal length.
Aug
21
comment A question regarding strong cardinals and measure sequence
If $Ult(V,E')$ contains $V_{\kappa+2}$ wouldn't it contain $E'\in V_{\kappa+2}^{\kappa}$ too as $|\kappa+1|=\kappa$ and by $\kappa$-closure?
Aug
21
comment A question regarding strong cardinals and measure sequence
Yeah but in this case isn't $u_j\restriction \beta\in Ult(V,E') \forall 0<\beta<\kappa+1$ so clearly includes $u_j(1)$ as well.
Aug
21
comment A question regarding strong cardinals and measure sequence
Then what goes wrong if we look at $E'=E\restriction_{[\kappa+1]^{<\omega}}$? If even $U(0)=\{X\subset \kappa: \kappa \in j(X)\}$ is in $Ult(V,E')$, we could recover $E'$ in $Ult(V,E')$ as follows: in $Ult(V,E')$, $\alpha\in [\kappa+1]^n$ and $\kappa\in \alpha$, $X\in U_\alpha \Leftrightarrow \alpha-\{\kappa\}\in \{\beta: \exists \gamma \geq \sup \beta \beta\cup\{\gamma\}\in X \} \wedge X_{max}=\{\gamma\in \kappa: \gamma \geq\alpha-\{\kappa\}\} \in U(0)$. So $E'\in Ult(V,E')$?
Aug
21
comment A question regarding strong cardinals and measure sequence
@MohammadGolshani Why do the restrictions of the new measure sequence have to lie in M'?
Aug
19
revised A question regarding strong cardinals and measure sequence
added 149 characters in body
Aug
19
asked A question regarding strong cardinals and measure sequence
Feb
15
accepted Consequences of ZF+“all subsets of reals are Lebesgue measurable”
Feb
4
answered What are your favorite instructional counterexamples?
Jan
22
comment Consequences of ZF+“all subsets of reals are Lebesgue measurable”
@AndresCaicedo: I did have in mind that the length of an interval equals its measure.
Jan
22
comment Consequences of ZF+“all subsets of reals are Lebesgue measurable”
@Burak: I mean ~CH is a consequence of ZFC + there is a measure on \mathbb{R}, and this measure is necessarily not Lebesgue. You are right over ZF they are not really orthogonal.
Jan
22
revised Consequences of ZF+“all subsets of reals are Lebesgue measurable”
added 29 characters in body
Jan
22
comment Consequences of ZF+“all subsets of reals are Lebesgue measurable”
I meant Lebesgue measure is total otherwise choice is not necessarily ruled out. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Jan
22
revised Consequences of ZF+“all subsets of reals are Lebesgue measurable”
added 10 characters in body
Jan
22
revised Consequences of ZF+“all subsets of reals are Lebesgue measurable”
added 16 characters in body
Jan
22
comment Consequences of ZF+“all subsets of reals are Lebesgue measurable”
Sorry Cantor space and R confusion. I remedied this. Isn't that such measure simply does not exist if R is a countable union of countable sets, by $\sigma$-additivity?
Jan
22
revised Consequences of ZF+“all subsets of reals are Lebesgue measurable”
deleted 67 characters in body
Jan
22
comment Consequences of ZF+“all subsets of reals are Lebesgue measurable”
@AndresCaicedo: thanks! Which survey by Fremlin do you refer to?