Timeline for Is this set theory equivalent to ZFC?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 31, 2020 at 16:11 | vote | accept | Vladimir Reshetnikov | ||
| Dec 30, 2020 at 14:16 | comment | added | Elliot Glazer | @MarioCarneiro You're right, all three of those were backwards. | |
| Dec 30, 2020 at 14:16 | history | edited | Elliot Glazer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixing error pointed out by Mario
|
| Dec 30, 2020 at 9:17 | comment | added | Mario Carneiro | Is the definition of the relation for union backwards? It seems you have $x$ as the smallest set in the order, not the largest, so $T$ would just end up being $\{x\}$. (Edit: the same comment applies to the relations for pairing and replacement, so I'm probably missing something.) | |
| Dec 30, 2020 at 6:58 | comment | added | Elliot Glazer | I'm using the standard definition here. They are finite transitive sets well-ordered by $\in.$ | |
| Dec 30, 2020 at 6:10 | comment | added | markvs | " Define a relation $R$ by $aRb$ iff $a$ and $b$ are natural numbers and $a=b+1$. Then $\omega$ exists by applying TC to $\emptyset$ and $R$." What are "natural numbers"? | |
| Dec 30, 2020 at 2:32 | history | edited | Elliot Glazer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 236 characters in body
|
| Dec 30, 2020 at 1:21 | history | edited | Elliot Glazer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Dec 30, 2020 at 1:07 | history | edited | Elliot Glazer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 383 characters in body
|
| Dec 30, 2020 at 1:00 | history | answered | Elliot Glazer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |