Timeline for A new maximality principle and its consequences
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 2017 at 3:32 | history | edited | Mohammad Golshani | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 409 characters in body
|
| Apr 10, 2017 at 11:54 | comment | added | Mohammad Golshani | See statement (C) in his paper. | |
| Apr 10, 2017 at 11:53 | comment | added | Mohammad Golshani | No, I don't take such objects as trees, I may also say that by special tree I mean something a little different. See Todorcevic's paper mentioned above in which the consistency of the statement for $\aleph_1$ is stated. For higher successors of regulars, Shelah and I have proved the consistency of the statement. | |
| Apr 10, 2017 at 11:34 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | If we view $\kappa$ itself as a linear order, then it is a tree of height and size $\kappa$, but it cannot be special. Doesn't this show that $\text{MP}_*$ is inconsistent? | |
| Apr 10, 2017 at 5:36 | history | edited | Mohammad Golshani | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Apr 10, 2017 at 5:35 | comment | added | Mohammad Golshani | You are right, I edited it. | |
| Apr 10, 2017 at 5:28 | comment | added | Péter Komjáth | I am confused. If $\kappa=\tau^+$, then the condition in $(MP_*)$ gives $2^\tau=\tau^{+3}$. | |
| Apr 10, 2017 at 4:28 | history | asked | Mohammad Golshani | CC BY-SA 3.0 |