Timeline for Can you formulate a theory stating that a truth predicate does not exist for first order set theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2017 at 12:18 | vote | accept | Christopher King | ||
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:50 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | But see my update with the conservativity result, which shows that your theory proves the same first-order consequences about sets as ZFC. In this sense, your theory has no new consequences in the first-order realm. (But it does have second-order consequences as I mentioned in my previous comment.) | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:49 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated with conservativity result
|
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:40 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Well, it implies several negative things, such as the failure of the forcing theorem, the failure of KM, the failure of determinacy for certain clopen class games, and so on. Set theorists are typically more interested in knowing the strength of the existence of the truth predicate, rather than the non-existence. But it follows that if you don't have the truth predicate, then you also don't have the things that you know imply there is one. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:35 | comment | added | Christopher King | You would not happen to know of any interesting implications of GBC+"there is no truth predicate", would you? | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:33 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improved exposition
|
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:23 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 128 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:16 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 128 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:05 | history | answered | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |