Timeline for Is restricting Replacement and Separation enough to make $Q+I\Sigma_n$ bi-interpretable with Set Theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 28, 2023 at 15:06 | comment | added | Chill2Macht | Technically doesn't one of the seven axioms of $\mathsf{Q}$, $y = 0 \lor \exists x (Sx = y)$, not belong to the finite and non-inductive fragment of $\mathsf{PA}$? Not that it makes any difference for the question given that it appears to be already be a consequence of $\mathsf{I\Sigma_1}$. Just commenting on this for other readers like me who became confused when they conflated the non-inductive fragment of $\mathsf{PA}$ with $\mathsf{Q}$ -- they aren't quite the same. | |
| Feb 12, 2019 at 13:46 | vote | accept | Not_Here | ||
| Feb 12, 2019 at 13:46 | history | edited | Not_Here | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed TeX
|
| Feb 12, 2019 at 7:26 | answer | added | Fedor Pakhomov | timeline score: 10 | |
| Feb 12, 2019 at 0:19 | history | edited | Not_Here | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed title
|
| Feb 11, 2019 at 17:34 | history | edited | Not_Here | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 368 characters in body
|
| Feb 11, 2019 at 17:26 | history | asked | Not_Here | CC BY-SA 4.0 |