Timeline for Definition of ineffability behind reflection principles in set theory
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 2018 at 15:44 | vote | accept | Mallik | ||
| Oct 6, 2018 at 10:03 | answer | added | Monroe Eskew | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 6, 2018 at 4:08 | comment | added | Mallik | @MonroeEskew Thanks for the question, I was imprecise. I've edited my question to reflect better what I had in mind, hopefully. | |
| Oct 6, 2018 at 4:07 | history | edited | Mallik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 167 characters in body
|
| Oct 5, 2018 at 15:11 | comment | added | Monroe Eskew | I was only suggesting one way to go. What do you mean by "including proper classes in our domain"? It is consistent relative to large cardinals that the universe reflects 2nd order logic. | |
| Oct 5, 2018 at 15:01 | comment | added | Mallik | @MonroeEskew The notion of an internal property is supposed to extend to logics of any order (cf. Godel's original characterization in Wang 1996). | |
| Oct 5, 2018 at 13:40 | comment | added | Monroe Eskew | In first order set theory, proper classes do no exist as objects. We can make the notion of "internal property" precise by identifying it with first-order property. | |
| Oct 5, 2018 at 3:27 | history | asked | Mallik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |