Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 10, 2021 at 7:29 comment added Dominic van der Zypen Seems I have to brush up on my negation / contraposition handling :)
Jul 9, 2021 at 22:32 comment added Asaf Karagila Again, you're making the wrong inference. All it shows is that there are witnesses for Mat₁ which are not witnesses for Mat₂. But the statement of both of the Mat's is existential. It quantifies over all sequences in the universe.
Jul 9, 2021 at 18:57 comment added Dominic van der Zypen Thanks! So $\neg$(Mat_1) is stronger than $\neg$(Mat_2), and is it known about any implication of these to the Partition Principle, or the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem?
Jul 9, 2021 at 15:11 comment added Asaf Karagila See mathoverflow.net/questions/308095/… and mathoverflow.net/questions/308030/…
Jul 9, 2021 at 14:07 comment added Dominic van der Zypen Thanks @AsafKaragila for your comment; sorry for being slow, can you give me a hint? I am especially interested in your "uniqueness" remark
Jul 9, 2021 at 14:06 comment added Dominic van der Zypen Thanks @Wojowu for both the link and your additional comment
Jul 9, 2021 at 13:51 comment added Wojowu I've just realized there is a subtle difference between this question and the one I linked above - essentially, in this question, you need to not only have a descending sequence of cardinals, but you also need to choose the representatives of cardinalities. Because of this it is for instance not immediate that the negation of Mat_1 implies there are no infinite Dedekind-finite cardinals (while it would be clear if we looked at cardinals themselves).
Jul 9, 2021 at 12:34 comment added Asaf Karagila It's very easy to find examples of sequences witnessing (1) but not (2), but it's a lot harder to show that there are no other sequences.
Jul 9, 2021 at 12:06 comment added Wojowu math.stackexchange.com/q/1634372/127263
Jul 9, 2021 at 12:01 history asked Dominic van der Zypen CC BY-SA 4.0