Timeline for Do these ordinals exist?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2018 at 12:03 | comment | added | Alec Rhea | @bof That would generally be a contextual statement used to save time when the meaning is hopefully clear from context; in this case, it seems to mean initial ordinals of 'most' first order definable large cardinal axioms. | |
| Feb 18, 2018 at 10:23 | comment | added | bof | What does it mean to say that something holds "for every sufficiently small [ordinal] $\alpha$"? Does $\alpha=0$ hold for every sufficiently small ordinal $\alpha$? | |
| Sep 20, 2017 at 5:29 | vote | accept | Zetapology | ||
| Sep 20, 2017 at 5:29 | vote | accept | Zetapology | ||
| Sep 20, 2017 at 5:29 | |||||
| Sep 20, 2017 at 5:29 | vote | accept | Zetapology | ||
| Sep 20, 2017 at 5:29 | |||||
| Sep 19, 2017 at 17:32 | answer | added | Yair Hayut | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 22:56 | comment | added | LSpice | Although it's not an issue now, since a moderator has deleted the MSE question, for future reference: on the question page for any question that you have asked, below the list of tags, where you would see just "share cite edit flag" for someone else's question, you will see "share cite edit close delete flag" for your own question. Possibly you'll see some different set of options, but 'delete' will definitely be one of them. Clicking that prompts to delete the question. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 22:02 | history | edited | Zetapology | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected math
|
| Sep 18, 2017 at 22:00 | comment | added | Zetapology | You're right, it does not imply the existance of $F_\omega(\alpha).$ | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 15:53 | answer | added | Andreas Blass | timeline score: 11 | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 14:21 | answer | added | Zetapology | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 14:10 | history | edited | Zetapology | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 24 characters in body; added 2 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2017 at 13:09 | comment | added | Not Mike | Aren't these just the indiscernibles for a model containing $\alpha$? | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 9:57 | comment | added | Yair Hayut | I guess that is we assume that $V_\beta \prec V$, then $F_n(\alpha)$ exists for every $n$ and every $\alpha < \beta$ (the function $F_n$ is even definable from $\beta$ in this case). If we assume further that there is a class of cardinals $\beta$ such that $V_{\beta} \prec V$ (which is equiconsistent with ZFC), we should get that $F_n(\alpha)$ exists for all $\alpha$ and $n$. Also, it is not clear to me why the existence of $F_n(\alpha)$ for all $n$ imply the existence of $F_{\omega}(\alpha)$, even if we assume that $V$ is well founded. | |
| Sep 18, 2017 at 9:22 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed last use of 'cordinal', fixed Erdős' name, added tag
|
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:52 | history | edited | Zetapology | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 65 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:29 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:34 | |||||
| Sep 18, 2017 at 7:24 | history | asked | Zetapology | CC BY-SA 3.0 |