Timeline for Taking a proper class as a model for Set Theory
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Mar 14, 2018 at 17:40 | history | suggested | Rafał Gruszczyński | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
ZFC changed to ZF, and added s at the end of model
|
| Mar 14, 2018 at 17:20 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 14, 2018 at 17:40 | |||||
| Mar 13, 2018 at 18:04 | answer | added | Justina Colmena | timeline score: -7 | |
| Feb 16, 2018 at 16:45 | vote | accept | Elie Ben-Shlomo | ||
| Feb 15, 2018 at 21:13 | comment | added | Burak | In ZFC, the (formal) satisfaction relation $\models$ is only defined for set-models. Moreover, in order to deduce the consistency of a theory from the existence of a model, you need to have a set-model. For this reason, the fact that "V/L is a model of ZFC", which cannot be expressed in ZFC with a single statement, does not say anything about the consistency of ZFC. Here is a related question. | |
| Feb 15, 2018 at 18:47 | history | edited | Asaf Karagila♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 15, 2018 at 18:21 | answer | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 15, 2018 at 18:20 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 21 | |
| Feb 15, 2018 at 18:11 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 15, 2018 at 18:16 | |||||
| Feb 15, 2018 at 18:06 | history | asked | Elie Ben-Shlomo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |