Timeline for What is the consistency strength of a standard model of ZF versus a transitive model?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:19 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 27, 2014 at 17:44 | vote | accept | Colin McLarty | ||
| Dec 27, 2014 at 16:58 | history | edited | Andrés E. Caicedo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 720 characters in body
|
| Dec 27, 2014 at 16:51 | comment | added | Colin McLarty | @AndresCaicedo Compared to proof theory, I tend to think of set theory as having all settled terminology. I have clarified in the question. | |
| Dec 27, 2014 at 16:31 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | @Andreas Merry Christmas, Andreas! Yes, I agree. (I personally feel the term should mean that the model is transitive.) But I feel that the extra generality of addressing $\beta$-models rather than just models with true membership is useful, as these models appear for instance in fine structure (via mastercodes). | |
| Dec 27, 2014 at 16:06 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | In my experience, the two most common meanings of "standard model" are "model with standard $\in$-relation" and "transitive model with the standard $\in$-relation." In particular it's stronger than $\beta$-model, but equivalent up to isomorphism. | |
| Dec 27, 2014 at 15:33 | history | answered | Andrés E. Caicedo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |