Timeline for What goes wrong in Easton forcing if we don't just use regular cardinals?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2012 at 3:00 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | I should clarify I that my main interest is not Easton's results, but in adding proper classes of sets. Cardinal inequalities are unimportant for my purposes. | |
| Nov 18, 2012 at 2:47 | history | edited | Andreas Blass | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Nov 18, 2012 at 1:59 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | Shortly before Silver announced his breakthrough result, Frank Drake wrote a paper explaining why not only Easton's method but also variations that people had been trying didn't work. The paper is "On failures at singular cardinals in generic extensions," J. London Math. Soc., series 2, vol. 9 (1974/75) pp. 219-228. I believe the motivation for Drake's paper was that, because attempts to extend Easton's result to singular cardinals were unsuccessful, they weren't being published, so people were independently inventing the same methods and discovering that they fail. | |
| Nov 18, 2012 at 1:51 | history | answered | Andreas Blass | CC BY-SA 3.0 |