Timeline for Non-Borel sets without axiom of choice
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| S Jan 26, 2015 at 12:12 | history | suggested | Jisang Yoo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved formatting
|
| Jan 26, 2015 at 12:02 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 26, 2015 at 12:12 | |||||
| Jul 22, 2010 at 22:04 | comment | added | George Lowther | Yes. I didn't realize how close that was to your argument when I first posted. My construction of non Borel sets (which I added now) is rather different though. | |
| Jul 22, 2010 at 22:01 | history | edited | George Lowther | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
continued
|
| Jul 22, 2010 at 1:24 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Yes, this issue about codable Borel sets was exactly what I was describing with borel codes, and you can only build a code for the union if you have the codes for the sets already chosen. | |
| Jul 22, 2010 at 1:24 | comment | added | George Lowther | Good question. I'd be lying if I said I knew the answer to that one. I personally haven't ever done any measure theory without at least countable choice. A more careful consideration of Fremlin's discussion in his book might help to answer that. | |
| Jul 22, 2010 at 1:17 | history | edited | George Lowther | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 390 characters in body
|
| Jul 22, 2010 at 1:12 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | Out of curiosity: does analysis get anything out of knowing that one can do analysis without choice? | |
| Jul 22, 2010 at 0:35 | history | edited | George Lowther | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 187 characters in body
|
| Jul 22, 2010 at 0:30 | history | answered | George Lowther | CC BY-SA 2.5 |