Timeline for The most simple proof of projective determinacy
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 9, 2021 at 15:45 | comment | added | Paul Larson | A reliable source once told me that the proof in Itay's handbook article is the simplest one anyone will ever find. | |
| Jul 7, 2021 at 17:00 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | Itay's write ups are very clean, in my opinion. Take a look at his chapter in the Handbook. That said, it may help if you indicate what specific difficulties you have in mind. | |
| Jun 24, 2021 at 10:35 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | I will also add that you're asking for a theorem that is a pinnacle of technical concepts. It's no wonder that the proofs are very long and complicated and have a lot of preliminary knowledge necessary. It's a long and technical subject. That's just how mathematics work, very often simple questions have very very very complicated answers. | |
| Jun 24, 2021 at 10:34 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | Often times the "exact consistency strength" is a bit harder to state, grasp, and work with. This is why so many of the proofs that require Woodin(s)+a sharp are done with Woodin(s)+measurable; and why the simpler proofs of things like generic absoluteness are from a supercompact rather than a proper class of Woodin cardinals. If you just want to understand the idea, I suggest you start by finding one of those simplified proofs, then start building your arsenal of tools (e.g. stationary tower and how it relates to generic absoluteness and determinacy proofs), and then go for the long proofs. | |
| Jun 24, 2021 at 10:02 | comment | added | Reflecting_Ordinal | of course in ZFC+there are n woodin cardinals for any n | |
| Jun 24, 2021 at 9:47 | comment | added | Wojowu | Proof from what axioms? It is not provable in ZF(C). | |
| Jun 24, 2021 at 9:44 | history | asked | Reflecting_Ordinal | CC BY-SA 4.0 |