Timeline for Number of ZFC proofs and are meta-proofs valid ZFC proofs [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nov 17, 2016 at 8:13 | history | closed |
Andrés E. Caicedo Stefan Kohl♦ Wolfgang Simon Thomas Myshkin |
Not suitable for this site | |
Nov 16, 2016 at 20:44 | review | Close votes | |||
Nov 17, 2016 at 8:13 | |||||
Nov 16, 2016 at 18:42 | vote | accept | Damian | ||
Nov 16, 2016 at 18:38 | history | edited | Damian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1191 characters in body
|
Nov 16, 2016 at 14:39 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 7 | |
Nov 16, 2016 at 12:30 | comment | added | Wojowu | What the paragraph is actually saying is a single proof of the statement "every woset $(W,\prec)$ is isomorphic to a unique ordinal", and the proof proceeds by "take any $W$ and prove stuff". This is still a single proof. It doesn't give you proper class of proofs pretty much because, for most wosets $(W,\prec)$, you can't actually define this woset, so you can't even state "$(W,\prec)$ is isomorphic to a unique ordinal" in the language of ZFC. | |
Nov 16, 2016 at 11:48 | review | First posts | |||
Nov 16, 2016 at 12:49 | |||||
Nov 16, 2016 at 11:47 | history | asked | Damian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |