Timeline for Is $PRA$ + $TI({\epsilon_0})$ mutually interpretable with some theory in the language of set theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2016 at 11:49 | history | edited | Thomas Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected spelling
|
| Dec 21, 2016 at 11:35 | history | edited | Thomas Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected errors in question
|
| Dec 20, 2016 at 17:46 | vote | accept | Thomas Benjamin | ||
| Dec 20, 2016 at 16:12 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | Yes, this is fine. | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 15:54 | comment | added | Thomas Benjamin | @EmilJeřábek: You are, of course, correct. Please let me know if the corrections are suitable, and if not, what would be, and I will re-edit. Thanks. | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 15:52 | history | edited | Thomas Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected error in question
|
| Dec 20, 2016 at 15:44 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | ZFC with the axiom of infinity replaced by its negation is not a fragment of ZFC (it is even inconsistent with ZFC). A fragment of ZFC equiconsistent with PA is ZFC with the axiom of infinity dropped. | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 15:38 | answer | added | Henry Towsner | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 15:38 | comment | added | Thomas Benjamin | @MattF.: Feel free to edit according to whatever the standard form for writing $T$ + $Axiom$ is, where $T$ is some formal theory. Thanks for the help. | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 15:20 | comment | added | user44143 | What do the underlines and single quote marks mean? Or can we delete them? | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 14:57 | history | asked | Thomas Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |