Timeline for Montague's Reflection Principle and Compactness Theorem
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2010 at 10:17 | vote | accept | Stefan Hoffelner | ||
| Mar 20, 2010 at 8:54 | vote | accept | Stefan Hoffelner | ||
| Mar 20, 2010 at 10:17 | |||||
| Mar 20, 2010 at 1:55 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | The Reflection Principle should be associated with Lévy (1960) as well as Montague (1961). | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 22:50 | answer | added | François G. Dorais | timeline score: 15 | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 21:12 | comment | added | Harald Hanche-Olsen | Ah, is that what he was driving at … | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 20:39 | comment | added | Sridhar Ramesh | Harald: it's not that the consistency of ZFC was in doubt. The question was basically, how come ZFC cannot prove its own consistency/that it has a model in a certain way (via the reflection theorem), contra Goedel's second incompleteness theorem? I've spelt out where this approach falters below. | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 20:32 | vote | accept | Stefan Hoffelner | ||
| Mar 20, 2010 at 8:54 | |||||
| Mar 19, 2010 at 20:29 | answer | added | Sridhar Ramesh | timeline score: 30 | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 20:29 | comment | added | Harald Hanche-Olsen | I haven't really done set theory of this sort since my student days (and not a whole lot even then), but how is it impossible to get a model of ZFC? If you know this, then it seems that you know that ZFS is inconsistent, which nobody knows (as far as I know). There must be some context here that I haven't understood, perhaps. | |
| Mar 19, 2010 at 20:26 | history | edited | Harald Hanche-Olsen | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Fixed title
|
| Mar 19, 2010 at 19:41 | history | asked | Stefan Hoffelner | CC BY-SA 2.5 |