Timeline for Is Ackermann's set theory minus class comprehension equal to ZF?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13, 2021 at 7:44 | vote | accept | Zuhair Al-Johar | ||
| Mar 26, 2020 at 10:15 | comment | added | Zuhair Al-Johar | IF class comprehension is not needed, then this would mean that we only need two axiom schemata that of "class comprehension" and "set construction" presented in linked question below: mathoverflow.net/questions/334208/… | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 9:51 | comment | added | Zuhair Al-Johar | I don't know the answer yet, although the below presented answer seem to say that it is equivalent, so no need for class comprehension, but yet I'm not sure, regularity is generally not needed for the interpretation of ZFC, and I think extensionality not needed as well because the class of all co-extensional sets to some set, is a set. If class comprhension is not needed, then we only really need two axioms one of completness (any element or subset of a set ,is a set) and set comprehension. But I'm not sure really. | |
| Mar 25, 2020 at 20:00 | comment | added | user76284 | Did you ever find out the answer? I also wonder whether extensionality and regularity are necessary to interpret ZFC. Can we keep just the axiom schema of set comprehension, the axiom of elements, and the axiom of subsets? | |
| Jun 9, 2019 at 4:27 | history | edited | Zuhair Al-Johar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jun 8, 2019 at 21:43 | answer | added | Master | timeline score: 1 | |
| S Mar 20, 2019 at 15:16 | history | suggested | Martin Berger | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Small language improvements.
|
| Mar 20, 2019 at 14:57 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 20, 2019 at 15:16 | |||||
| Mar 20, 2019 at 12:09 | history | asked | Zuhair Al-Johar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |