Timeline for Is axiom of constructibility $V = L$ consistent with Tarski–Grothendieck set theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 29, 2020 at 5:55 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | Tarski-Grothendieck doesn't get talked about much in set theory since it's equivalent to $\mathsf{ZFC}$ + "There is a proper class of (strong) inaccessibles." In general, while the language of universes is quite natural for (say) category theory, on the set theory side the language of large cardinals is more convenient. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 5:27 | answer | added | Hanul Jeon | timeline score: 11 | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 5:08 | comment | added | 喻 良 | I think that "there are a proper class of inaccessible cardinals" implies TG. So it is consistent with constructibility. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 3:33 | comment | added | James E Hanson | Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if $V$ is a model of $\mathsf{TG}$ then $L^V$ is a model of $\mathsf{TG} + V=L$, so they're equiconsistent. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 3:09 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 29, 2020 at 6:04 | |||||
| Oct 29, 2020 at 3:09 | history | asked | user4534237 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |