Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 2, 2022 at 18:16 comment added Noah Schweber Nope, I'm just bad at math once it gets past 8pm or so. :P Thanks!
Feb 2, 2022 at 18:02 comment added Gabe Goldberg The argument in the second-to-last paragraph above seems to yield that if $\delta$ is the compactness number for $\mathcal L_{\kappa,\omega}$, then every $\delta$-complete filter extends to a $\kappa$-complete ultrafilter; i.e., $\delta$ is $\kappa$-compact. Conversely, if $\delta$ is $\kappa$-compact, it is greater than or equal to the compactness number for $\mathcal L_{\kappa,\kappa}$, which in turn is at least the compactness number for $\mathcal L_{\kappa,\omega}$. Am I missing something?
Feb 2, 2022 at 4:15 comment added Noah Schweber A couple years later, what happens with $\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\omega}$ instead? (The inability to characterize well-foundedness seems like an issue for this argument, but I might be having a stupid moment.)
Oct 25, 2020 at 22:08 history edited Gabe Goldberg CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1190 characters in body
Oct 25, 2020 at 21:22 comment added Gabe Goldberg Yes you're right, I'll add the details.
Oct 25, 2020 at 21:21 comment added Noah Schweber Sorry, I'm having a silly moment; I don't immediately see the theory you describe in the second part of the last paragraph (getting from compactness numbers to large cardinals). At the very least it seems that we should have names for all subsets of $P_\delta(X)$, not just of $X$. Can you add some details?
Oct 24, 2020 at 2:45 vote accept Noah Schweber
Oct 24, 2020 at 0:51 history edited Gabe Goldberg CC BY-SA 4.0
added 8 characters in body
Oct 23, 2020 at 23:55 history edited Gabe Goldberg CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 5 characters in body
Oct 23, 2020 at 23:04 history answered Gabe Goldberg CC BY-SA 4.0