Asaf Karagila
Reputation
13,643
542/400 score
 1d comment Singular in $V$ regular in $HOD$ What are the large cardinals they're using there? Apr 29 comment Does Con(ZF + Reinhardt) really imply Con(ZFC + I0)? @Joel: Thanks. "Counterexample" to your statement, mathoverflow.net/questions/237662/… :-) Apr 29 comment Does Con(ZF + Reinhardt) really imply Con(ZFC + I0)? @Joel: I know that, which is why this was a comment and not an answer. I was just trying to get a confirmation on my question. Despite having the advisor that I have, large cardinals (and very large cardinals) are still not so deep inside my comfort zone that I can make a remark like the one I made without someone double checking it. Apr 29 comment Is there an image for you that epitomizes mathematics? @Todd: abstrusegoose.com/230 Apr 29 comment Does Con(ZF + Reinhardt) really imply Con(ZFC + I0)? @Joel: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if $\kappa$ is a Reinhardt cardinal, and $\lambda=\sup j^n(\kappa)$, then there is an elementary embedding from $L(V_{\lambda+1})$ to itself. No? So at least as far as ZF is concerned, Reinhardt implies I0. Apr 28 comment Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals @Rahman: Thanks for the link, I saw that before posting the question actually. (I must have missed your comment before, sorry) Apr 28 comment Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals Thanks Joel. That helps! Apr 27 revised Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals Typo. Apr 27 comment Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals I referred specifically to compactness, and three other definitions, in my edit. Apr 27 comment Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals Yes, that is probably what's going to happen later tonight. I've just arrived after two weeks away, and a lot of things need attention. Apr 27 comment Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals That's helpful, but actually that is probably the least helpful equivalent here. But it is helpful! Apr 27 comment Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals Okay, I think I see where this is going. Thanks. I'd still be happy to see a reference, but after I'll get settled back at home I'll hunt the reference you pointed to. Thanks. Apr 27 comment Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals The embedding in the weakly compact case are already fully elementary. What do you strengthen when you pass from $\Pi_1^1$ to higher levels in the hierarchy? Apr 27 revised Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals added 382 characters in body; edited tags Apr 26 comment Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals Wait, what is the "obvious" generalization above $\Pi^1_1$? Apr 26 comment Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals Thanks, Mohammad. But is there a direct proof anywhere? Apr 26 asked Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals Apr 25 comment Nonexistence of generic objects over $L(\mathbb{R})$ I'd be surprised if the answer is positive to this broad case. Perhaps if you consider idealized forcings with "relatively definable" ideals (whatever that might be). Apr 25 comment Mathematicians with Aphantasia (Inability to Visualize Things in One's Mind) I don't have aphantasia, but I find it very very hard to visualize some mathematical objects. But not the ones you'd expect: I have no problem visualizing a model of set theory, an infinite dimensional vector space, or convergence in the cofinite topology over $\Bbb Z$. I am having a very hard time imagining, however, a plane moving through a ball, or what are gradients, and what the hell are Lagrange multipliers? Luckily, all those have comfortable formal definitions for me to use as a cushion when I have to. Apr 22 comment Does Con(ZF + Reinhardt) really imply Con(ZFC + I0)? @Gro-Tsen: The word "Reinhardt" does not appear in either paper of the Suitable Extender Models.