Timeline for Let's keep adding once undecidable statements
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan 22, 2020 at 2:35 | comment | added | Rémi Peyre | Note that a quite similar question, with many very worthy answers, was asked as mathoverflow.net/questions/12865. | |
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
Jun 15, 2016 at 19:36 | vote | accept | asdfusername | ||
Jun 15, 2016 at 14:06 | answer | added | Gro-Tsen | timeline score: 5 | |
Jun 15, 2016 at 13:06 | history | edited | Qfwfq | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
Jun 15, 2016 at 9:54 | answer | added | Payam Seraji | timeline score: 3 | |
Jun 14, 2016 at 5:58 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | Why on earth was this voted down? It's a very natural question. | |
Jun 13, 2016 at 21:24 | answer | added | none | timeline score: 4 | |
Jun 13, 2016 at 19:22 | answer | added | Noah Schweber | timeline score: 14 | |
Jun 13, 2016 at 18:33 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | No matter how you resolve the aforementioned subtleties, the resulting $\eta$ must be undecidable (being a consistent extension of Robinson's arithmetic) and incomplete (as it is included in the theory ZFC + all true $\Pi^0_1$ sentences). | |
Jun 13, 2016 at 18:15 | comment | added | David E Speyer | There are a lot of subtleties in defining $ZFC_{\alpha}$, see mathoverflow.net/questions/67214 for a good discussion. | |
Jun 13, 2016 at 18:07 | history | edited | asdfusername | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 29 characters in body
|
Jun 13, 2016 at 18:01 | review | First posts | |||
Jun 13, 2016 at 19:49 | |||||
Jun 13, 2016 at 17:58 | history | asked | asdfusername | CC BY-SA 3.0 |