Timeline for Preservation of measurable cardinals in mild extensions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 21, 2013 at 19:20 | answer | added | Monroe Eskew | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 21, 2013 at 4:13 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | Joel has completely answered the question, but I hope the following two remarks might be useful for St.D. or for other readers. (1) Contrary to the implicit assumption in the question, if $T\in U$, it need not follow that $X\in W$. As Joel showed, it does follow that some $q\leq p$ forces $X$ to be in $W$, but $G$ might happen not to contain such a $q$. (2) Since the notion of forcing $P$ has size $<\kappa$, you can assume, replacing it with an isomorphic copy, that it is in $V_\kappa$. That will simplify Joel's $j$ argument slightly as $j$ will fix $P$ and all its members. | |
| Jul 21, 2013 at 0:33 | vote | accept | Stamatis Dimopoulos | ||
| Jul 20, 2013 at 23:45 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | I agree with Asaf. I find any question concerning the interaction of forcing and large cardinals to be a graduate-level question that is on-topic for MO. | |
| Jul 20, 2013 at 23:36 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | While this question would be on topic on MSE, I disagree with its closing here. I think this question is on topic here. | |
| Jul 20, 2013 at 23:33 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 21, 2013 at 1:11 | |||||
| Jul 20, 2013 at 23:25 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 20, 2013 at 23:05 | history | asked | Stamatis Dimopoulos | CC BY-SA 3.0 |