Timeline for Is the collection of isomorphism classes of groups a proper class?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2010 at 14:19 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | I appreciate this clarification, thank you. At least I had something sensible in mind, even if I spelled it out incorrectly. Sorry for that. | |
| Jan 25, 2010 at 13:14 | answer | added | Pete L. Clark | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 25, 2010 at 13:06 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Technically, the question is not properly posed, since the isomorphism class of any single group (even the trivial group) is itself a proper class, and not a set. Thus, you have a "collection" of proper classes already, and this is neither a set nor a class. Rather, what you want to ask about is: Is there a proper class of pairwise non-isomorphic groups? And this is the question that the answerers answered. | |
| Jan 25, 2010 at 9:20 | answer | added | S. Carnahan♦ | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 25, 2010 at 9:11 | vote | accept | Hans-Peter Stricker | ||
| Jan 25, 2010 at 9:09 | answer | added | Gerhard Paseman | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 25, 2010 at 8:53 | answer | added | Andrew Stacey | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jan 25, 2010 at 8:49 | history | asked | Hans-Peter Stricker | CC BY-SA 2.5 |