Timeline for Alternate proof of Morley's theorem?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2015 at 17:58 | comment | added | Rami Grossberg | As far as question (2) of finding an alternative proof to Morley's categoricity theorem using L_\omega_1,\omega as a tool? This is like asking is it possible to travel to New York City via the planet Mars? A more formal answer is perhaps yes, but unknown at present and most likely it will take lots of energy. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 17:47 | comment | added | Rami Grossberg | Already in his 1971 book Keisler attempted to generalize Morley's theorem for L_\omega_1,\omega. In recent years more than 2,000 pages published on various approximations for Shelah's conjecture, despite of very significant progress the conjecture is still open. Baldwin in the second half of his talk mentioned few attempts. The result (that was obtained independently by Chodnovski, Keisler and Shelah) is presented in Keisler's 1971 book on page 92 it is Theorem 24. The proof is a simple coding trick on top of Morley's two cardinal theorem. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 17:47 | comment | added | Rami Grossberg | While I did not attend Baldwin's talk, I am quit cetain that in his actual talk as opposed to the slides the OP mentioned, he did expalin that the focus is on Shelah's categoricity conjecture. Shelah in the late seventies started a project of developing classification theory in the context of Abstract Elementary Class (AEC), this includes many infintary logics like L_\omega_1,\omega. see problem (3) on page xxii of hs 1990 book. | |
| Feb 27, 2015 at 20:36 | vote | accept | Andrei Sipoș | ||
| Feb 21, 2015 at 3:40 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | Why are people voting to close this? It's a perfectly appropriate question. | |
| Feb 21, 2015 at 1:15 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @RyanBudney My reading is that the question is rather trying to track down a mysterious reference involving the three names Keisler, Chudnovsky, and Shelah, and asking what might be in that reference. (There may not be such a reference involving all three; see Ed Dean's nice answer.) I really don't believe the OP is asking the community to explain Morley's classical work on categoricity (or results obtained inter alia on omitting types), which context he presumably thought was clear. "Doing all the work for you" really seems an unwarranted conclusion about what the OP wants here. | |
| S Feb 20, 2015 at 21:40 | history | suggested | Ed Dean |
the [reference-request] tag seems appropriate
|
|
| Feb 20, 2015 at 21:36 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 20, 2015 at 21:40 | |||||
| Feb 20, 2015 at 21:35 | answer | added | Ed Dean | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 21:09 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | You're talking about Mike Morley, right? I saw him almost every day for years. Sure I'm familiar with some of his work, and presumably the improperly cited theorem of his that this thread is about. | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 20:57 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | There appears to be a closely related set of slides here: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/… Page 34-35 outlines the intended Morley's theorem, and page 37 repeats some of the material you cited from that page 45. | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 20:53 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @RyanBudney Could you please clarify how your comment applies to this post? The author reports that he was unable to find an independent reference to the article; I believe him. Question 2 looks like a real question to me, and evidently based on some background knowledge. I just don't see how the OP is asking MO users "do all the work for [him]". And (pardon me for asking) is this subject area one that is familiar to you? | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 20:38 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 20, 2015 at 21:08 | |||||
| Feb 20, 2015 at 20:23 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | Asking someone to do all the work for you is generally not the best way to get s fruitful response. Perhaps give details of which Morley theorem you're interested in, and write up (as best you can) your point of confusion. If you're really just confused by some slides, it would be best to contact the author directly. | |
| Feb 20, 2015 at 20:10 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 20, 2015 at 20:22 | |||||
| Feb 20, 2015 at 20:07 | history | asked | Andrei Sipoș | CC BY-SA 3.0 |