Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 26, 2020 at 22:49 comment added Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda @PeterLeFanuLumsdaine Yes, there is some ambiguity (but I think your interpretation makes for a lot more interesting answers -- such as this one!).
Oct 26, 2020 at 22:32 comment added Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine @Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda: I guess that sentence from the question — “solved mostly/only because of the insight that set theory has offered” — is ambiguous. I understood it to mean “the solution was mostly/only possible because of set theory”, i.e. “the set theory is essential, or at least hard to avoid”, making this a very apt answer. But I guess your reading “the solution consists mostly/only of set theory” is also reasonable.
Oct 26, 2020 at 22:08 history made wiki Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble
Oct 26, 2020 at 13:55 comment added Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda @AndrésE.Caicedo I agree that the set theory is essential as well! That both the group theory and set theory are essential is exactly my point: thus this problem was not (it seems to me) solved mostly/only because of the insight that set theory has offered.
Oct 26, 2020 at 13:49 comment added Andrés E. Caicedo On the contrary. This shows that the problem is a genuine question from the field it comes from (in this case, group theory), rather than a set-theoretic question in disguise. The set theory is essential as well, that is, only using group-theoretic arguments is not enough.
Oct 26, 2020 at 11:15 comment added Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda Shelah's involves a great deal of combinatorial group theory (including amalgamated free products and small cancellation theory) quite explicitly. So I'm not sure it satisfies that this problem "has been solved mostly/only because of the insight that set theory has offered".
Oct 26, 2020 at 10:42 history edited Asaf Karagila CC BY-SA 4.0
With apologies to Juris.
Oct 26, 2020 at 9:47 history answered Asaf Karagila CC BY-SA 4.0