Timeline for Embedding property of weakly compact cardinals
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2016 at 7:38 | history | edited | Asaf Karagila♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Typo.
|
| Apr 27, 2016 at 5:59 | history | edited | Mohammad Golshani | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1924 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2016 at 5:20 | comment | added | Mohammad Golshani | In Hauser, it is directly proved $\Pi^1_1$-indescribability implies the embedding property. | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 5:15 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | I referred specifically to compactness, and three other definitions, in my edit. | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 5:11 | comment | added | Mohammad Golshani | Another natural question that can be added is who (and where) proved the equivalence between weak compactness and embedding property. I think the extension property is due to Keisler. | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 5:09 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | Yes, that is probably what's going to happen later tonight. I've just arrived after two weeks away, and a lot of things need attention. | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 5:07 | comment | added | Mohammad Golshani | Your welcome. Maybe the best thing is to look at Hauser paper I mentioned above and simplify his argument for the case of weakly compact cardinals. I gave the above as it was the simplest way (for me) to give such a characterization. | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 5:06 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | That's helpful, but actually that is probably the least helpful equivalent here. But it is helpful! | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 5:03 | history | answered | Mohammad Golshani | CC BY-SA 3.0 |