Timeline for Stronger negation of AC given by rejecting "infinite hat" puzzles
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2, 2019 at 4:29 | vote | accept | Mike Battaglia | ||
| Feb 1, 2019 at 6:16 | answer | added | Elliot Glazer | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 31, 2019 at 22:12 | comment | added | Jalex Stark | Some of these infinite hat results can be derived from "there exists a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $\mathbb N$." I don't know how this fits into the bigger picture of consistency results. | |
| Jan 31, 2019 at 21:51 | comment | added | Mike Battaglia | I would appreciate links on the implications of the infinite hat "paradox" if you have them, but this is a totally different question than what I'm asking. I'm not asking about the implications of the paradox, I'm asking about the implications of its negation. For example, Banach-Tarski implies non-measurable sets of reals, but "not-Banach-Tarski" is not strong enough to imply the nonexistence of non-measurable sets of reals. | |
| Jan 31, 2019 at 21:38 | history | edited | Mike Battaglia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarification
|
| Jan 31, 2019 at 21:36 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | You know, it's really great that you ask these things. But many of these questions were discussed previously either here or on math.SE. Specifically, the infinite hat "paradox" implies there are irregular sets. Namely, sets without the Baire property, sets which are not Lebesgue measurable, etc. | |
| Jan 31, 2019 at 21:24 | history | edited | Mike Battaglia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarification
|
| Jan 31, 2019 at 21:13 | history | asked | Mike Battaglia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |