Timeline for Does the generalized $\Delta$-system lemma imply some weak version of the GCH?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 26, 2013 at 19:17 | vote | accept | Santi Spadaro | ||
| May 17, 2013 at 14:28 | history | edited | Santi Spadaro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected a typo
|
| May 17, 2013 at 14:28 | comment | added | Santi Spadaro | Yes, Joel, I did mean "below $\kappa$". | |
| May 17, 2013 at 7:17 | comment | added | user10290 | Santi, I like this question. I have wondered what assumptions we make when using a delta-system argument. | |
| May 17, 2013 at 0:40 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Do you really mean to ask about the GCH at $\kappa$, rather than, say, at the cardinal predecessors of $\kappa$ in the case that $\kappa$ is a successor? For example, in the positive direction your hypothesis is not really a GCH property at $\kappa$ itself, but a GCH property below $\kappa$. | |
| May 17, 2013 at 0:23 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 20 | |
| May 16, 2013 at 22:45 | history | edited | Santi Spadaro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 29 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2013 at 22:37 | history | asked | Santi Spadaro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |