Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 29, 2022 at 22:46 history edited Hanul Jeon CC BY-SA 4.0
added 6 characters in body
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
Feb 20, 2015 at 15:33 vote accept Hanul Jeon
Feb 20, 2015 at 13:14 answer added Mohammad Golshani timeline score: 8
Feb 19, 2015 at 15:27 comment added Asaf Karagila (Of course the existence of elementary submodels of this type generally requires $\sf DC$ and $\sf AC_\kappa$ for every aleph number $\kappa$.)
Feb 19, 2015 at 15:25 comment added Asaf Karagila @Joel: That much is clear, but the interesting question is whether or not the proof can be modified slightly to accommodate this. For example, if you could ensure that instead of $V_\alpha$, you could take some elementary submodel of $V_\alpha$ which can be encoded by ordinals and that it calculates $A$ correctly.
Feb 19, 2015 at 15:23 comment added Joel David Hamkins The proof is definitely using AC in a fundamental way, since when a set is in HOD, then the proof argues that it is definable in some $V_\theta$, and then you wait for the $L_{SO}$ hierarchy to grow large enough that you can have a predicate coding all of $V_\theta$ in order to define $x$ at that stage. But if $V_\theta$ is not well-orderable, there can be no such stage where $V_\theta$ is coded like that.
Feb 19, 2015 at 15:10 comment added Asaf Karagila Earlier this year one of the talks in the Friday set theory seminar was (amongst other things) about this construction, and later we had a discussion one whether or not the axiom of choice is used there. I can't recall the answer or semi-answer that we arrived at, though.
Feb 19, 2015 at 14:18 review First posts
Feb 19, 2015 at 14:30
Feb 19, 2015 at 14:16 history asked Hanul Jeon CC BY-SA 3.0