Timeline for What is the status of the assertion "There are arbitrarily large cardinals with the tree property"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 21, 2018 at 14:06 | vote | accept | Tim Campion | ||
| Jan 26, 2018 at 20:35 | vote | accept | Tim Campion | ||
| Jul 21, 2018 at 14:06 | |||||
| Jan 24, 2018 at 12:43 | answer | added | Julian Barathieu | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 9:15 | answer | added | Mohammad Golshani | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 7:19 | comment | added | Tim Campion | Does that mean it's easy to get the tree property at regular limit cardinals which are not strong limit cardinals? | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 6:12 | comment | added | Mohammad Golshani | The difficult question is to get tree property at successor regular cardinals $> \aleph_1.$ The famous question of Magidor asks if it is consistent that all such cardinals have the tree property, and it is widely open, despite many partial results. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 6:08 | comment | added | Mohammad Golshani | In $L$, no successor cardinal has the tree property, so if you assume there are no weakly compact cardinals, then in $L$, no uncountable regular cardinal has the tree property. | |
| Jan 23, 2018 at 5:37 | history | asked | Tim Campion | CC BY-SA 3.0 |