Timeline for How many closed measure zero sets are needed to cover the real line?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2015 at 12:24 | comment | added | Boaz Tsaban | Thanks for the answer! It immediately raises another question, posed seperately so as not to deprive you of answering the first question. | |
| S Dec 15, 2015 at 10:48 | history | suggested | Boaz Tsaban | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
\operatorname
|
| Dec 15, 2015 at 10:43 | vote | accept | Boaz Tsaban | ||
| Dec 15, 2015 at 10:42 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 15, 2015 at 10:48 | |||||
| Dec 15, 2015 at 7:18 | comment | added | Ashutosh | I used to think that the symbol for reaping number was $\tau$! | |
| Dec 15, 2015 at 7:17 | history | edited | Ashutosh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 520 characters in body
|
| Dec 15, 2015 at 7:00 | comment | added | Boaz Tsaban | I think I can see what you mean, that is, why $\operatorname{cov}(\mathcal{E})\le\mathfrak{r}$. Then the forcing part can be replaced by the consistency of $\mathfrak{r}<\mathfrak{d}$. But to be on the safe side, and for other readers, could you provide more details for the former assertion, and if exists, also a reference? (Also, any reason why the reaping number is denoted here $\tau$ and not $\mathfrak{r}$ as is more customary?) | |
| Dec 15, 2015 at 6:54 | history | answered | Ashutosh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |