Timeline for Weakly initial sets - examples and nonexamples
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 2010 at 11:46 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | No problem. I've added an edit to my answer to give something reasonably simple (I guess). | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 11:02 | vote | accept | David Roberts♦ | ||
| Oct 6, 2010 at 11:02 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Sorry - it was changing the rules after I'd stated them. I undo my silly tick removal. (Got to stop doing that - this is the second time I've done it) | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 10:59 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I will defend my answer as giving a class of examples, and also of putting the idea of weak initial set into a motivated context. If you want the simplest example, then perhaps you should say so? | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 8:26 | answer | added | Laurent Moret-Bailly | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 8:02 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | And I realised how stupid my question regarding Fields was, but the second part of the question was less stupid, so I left it up. | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 8:00 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Ah, that's nice. So Fields has a weakly initial set, and Fields^op doesn't. Thanks. For the amount of space I want to talk about these two examples, that should be better than Todd's answer. | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 6:58 | comment | added | George Lowther | Well, there's the opposite of Fields, if that's natural enough? | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 6:47 | vote | accept | David Roberts♦ | ||
| Oct 6, 2010 at 8:50 | |||||
| Oct 6, 2010 at 5:47 | answer | added | Todd Trimble | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 5:13 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Sorry, David, I'm not sure what you're worried about. Any field contains a smallest field (the smallest field containing 1) where 1 is either torsion (making the smallest field a finite field F_p) or not (making it Q). | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 4:33 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Actually, this is a bit of a folly. My guess is that the fields Q, F_p are enough, but I wonder if there are crazy model theory type things that go on at large cardinals. Or am I worrying about nothing? | |
| Oct 6, 2010 at 3:04 | history | asked | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |