Timeline for Existential statement without witness
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 9:58 | vote | accept | McDuffin | ||
| Dec 14, 2014 at 23:08 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Yes, of course I agree completely with that. | |
| Dec 14, 2014 at 23:07 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | I agree with the sentiment, though I'd prefer to say that the existence of a transitive model is (in the realm of set theory) much stronger than the existence of an $\omega$-model, which is in turn much stronger than $\omega$-consistency. | |
| Dec 14, 2014 at 20:23 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improved exposition
|
| Dec 14, 2014 at 20:17 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | One might add, however, that in the large cardinal realm this difference doesn't actually count as very much stronger. Typically, a stronger large cardinal provides a full transitive model of the weaker cardinals. | |
| Dec 14, 2014 at 16:10 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Dec 14, 2014 at 16:07 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Yes, you are right. I have edited. | |
| Dec 14, 2014 at 15:58 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | The existence of an $\omega$-model is equivalent to consistency in $\omega$-logic, which is a much stronger property than just $\omega$-consistency. | |
| Dec 14, 2014 at 15:56 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 27 characters in body
|
| Dec 14, 2014 at 15:44 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 928 characters in body
|
| Dec 14, 2014 at 15:31 | history | answered | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |