Timeline for Can Assumptions about forcing produce Mice?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:57 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Nov 15, 2012 at 19:38 | comment | added | Not Mike | Oh no, don't get me wrong that is exactly where my intuition about forcing comes from and is why I was a bit worried, since proofs always carry more weight than intuitions. | |
| Nov 15, 2012 at 18:07 | comment | added | Not Mike | (and makes me finally feel like I can sanely use forcing to produce consistency results again.) | |
| Nov 15, 2012 at 18:01 | comment | added | Not Mike | Joel, Thank you very much for the counter-example; this question has been bothering me for a couple of weeks, and for the life of me I couldn't figure out how to construct a forcing with these properties without first assuming either Con(ZFC) or \neg Con(ZFC); but as you seem to hint at, this is not at a problem because the extension of the forcing language to include the constant $\check{\lambda}$ for a fixed regular cardinal $\lambda$ is necessarily a more expressive language than that without constants. In particular forcing cheats way harder than I'd ever expected. | |
| Nov 15, 2012 at 15:57 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 138 characters in body; added 326 characters in body
|
| Nov 15, 2012 at 15:49 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 655 characters in body; added 1 characters in body; edited body; added 12 characters in body; edited body; deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Nov 15, 2012 at 15:39 | history | answered | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |