Timeline for Statements which were given as axioms, which later turned out to be false.
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 2012 at 22:19 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Correction: the inconsistent version of hypercompact cardinals are now called excessively hypercompact. So Norman has proved in a section of his dissertation that there are no excessively hypercompact cardinals. Meanwhile, what are now called the hypercompact cardinals, after a correction in light of Norman's observation, have a consistency strength below the Woodin-for-supercompact cardinals, which he has proved are the same as the Vopenka cardinals. | |
| Dec 19, 2012 at 15:04 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | We took the site down while we're working on some security issues. | |
| Dec 19, 2012 at 3:14 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @Andres - yes, it seems to have been the target of some spammers or similar. | |
| Dec 19, 2012 at 1:08 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | Hmm... Cantor's attic seems to be down. | |
| Dec 19, 2012 at 1:01 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | And for another example of this type, recently my student Norman Perlmutter has refuted the existence of what have been called hypercompact cardinals (but which we now call them strongly hypercompact cardinals). | |
| Dec 19, 2012 at 0:59 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | I would think so, yes. | |
| Dec 19, 2012 at 0:54 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | In this vein, do Reinhardt cardinals qualify? | |
| Dec 19, 2012 at 0:29 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 85 characters in body; added 9 characters in body
|
| Dec 19, 2012 at 0:19 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 77 characters in body; added 99 characters in body; Post Made Community Wiki
|
| Dec 19, 2012 at 0:14 | history | answered | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |