Timeline for Pathological behavior of Borel sets?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 18:05 | answer | added | user151152 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 19:46 | answer | added | user151109 | timeline score: 6 | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Apr 15, 2014 at 0:08 | comment | added | Ashutosh | Here is a convoluted way of saying something about Borel sets that is independent over ZFC: If every subset of a set X of reals is (relatively) Borel then X is Borel. | |
| Apr 9, 2014 at 0:04 | vote | accept | Noah Schweber | ||
| Apr 7, 2014 at 23:21 | answer | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | timeline score: 13 | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 23:05 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | To my knowledge it's still open, at all, if we can have a quasi-amorphous (I prefer $\aleph_1$-amorphous) set of real numbers. Not just Borel. I'm also not sure if it's consistent to have an infinite Dedekind-finite set of real numbers which cannot be mapped onto itself + 1, so I'm not even sure if we have an example for that as well. | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 10:36 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 8 | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 5:46 | history | asked | Noah Schweber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |