Timeline for Borel equivalence relations in models of determinacy
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 27, 2016 at 14:05 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | The statement has a typo. He has not defined $\le_{L (\mathbb R)} $. The second inequality is awkwardly written, but it is his notational convention to indicate that there is an injection in $L (\mathbb R) $ from one quotient to the other (but this is the standard definition of $\le_{L (\mathbb R)} $). Presumably he meant to write that $\mathsf{AD} $ proves that there is an injection between the quotients constructible from $\mathbb R $ iff there is Borel injection. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 7:51 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | Oh, I'm not criticizing you. Just generally complaining about notation. :) | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 7:47 | comment | added | Andre Kornell | @AsafKaragila: I copied the statement exactly as it appears in the slides, because I am not completely confident of the meaning of this notation. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 7:45 | comment | added | Andre Kornell | @YizhengZhu: I think that the statement is not a simple tautology, due to choice issues. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 7:12 | comment | added | Yizheng Zhu | I think the first reducibility should be Borel reducibility. Otherwise it would be a simple tautology. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 6:59 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | Isn't it ever so slightly easier to say "work in $L(\Bbb R)$ ..." and then just omit the $L(\Bbb R)$ and all the continuing references to which model these things are computed in? | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 4:32 | history | edited | Andre Kornell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
a
|
| Mar 27, 2016 at 4:02 | history | asked | Andre Kornell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |