Timeline for Which sentences are "irreducibly" self-referential over $\mathsf{PA}$?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2022 at 4:48 | history | edited | Noah Schweber | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 131 characters in body
|
| S May 8, 2022 at 20:03 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S May 8, 2022 at 20:03 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Apr 30, 2022 at 18:40 | history | edited | Noah Schweber | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| S Apr 30, 2022 at 18:39 | history | bounty started | Noah Schweber | ||
| S Apr 30, 2022 at 18:39 | history | notice added | Noah Schweber | Draw attention | |
| Apr 30, 2022 at 18:39 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | @SridharRamesh There's a good chance I was responsible, actually - every so often I flag a comment thread on one of my own questions as "no longer necessary" if I think it's getting long enough to distract (and is indeed no longer necessary). In case I was the flagger here, no offense was meant at all. | |
| Apr 1, 2022 at 1:01 | comment | added | Sridhar Ramesh | Ah, ok, that explains it. I was just curious what had happened. I didn't realize MathOverflow revises the comment record in this way. | |
| Apr 1, 2022 at 1:00 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | @SridharRamesh You did indeed - you pointed out an error I'd made, which I acknowledged and corrected. I think then both of our comments were removed as "no longer relevant." | |
| Apr 1, 2022 at 0:59 | comment | added | Sridhar Ramesh | I could swear I had made some comments on this question but now I cannot find them. I am surprised, I don't know what has happened. I would not think anything about them required deletion. | |
| Mar 27, 2022 at 19:38 | history | edited | Noah Schweber | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| S Mar 17, 2022 at 17:03 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Mar 17, 2022 at 17:03 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Mar 10, 2022 at 18:13 | history | edited | Noah Schweber | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 341 characters in body
|
| S Mar 9, 2022 at 15:57 | history | bounty started | Noah Schweber | ||
| S Mar 9, 2022 at 15:57 | history | notice added | Noah Schweber | Draw attention | |
| Mar 5, 2022 at 23:19 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | @Gro-Tsen It can indeed be stated - irreducible self-referentiality is $\Sigma^0_3$ ("There is a $\chi$ such that for all $\psi$ either these three $\Sigma^0_1$ phenomena each hold or they each fail"), so the diagonal lemma applies. I remember convincing myself that it is not i.s.r via the formulas "Is i.s.r." due to the 2/3 equivalence failing, but (1) that wouldn't show that it's not i.s.r. some other way (similarly to the standard Godel sentence as mentioned above) and (2) now that I look at it again, I don't see it as immediately. | |
| Mar 5, 2022 at 23:00 | comment | added | Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda | @Gro-Tsen Your comment is not irreducibly self-referential, as can be seen in the comments to this question. | |
| Mar 5, 2022 at 22:53 | comment | added | Gro-Tsen | I feel compelled to ask whether the statement “this statement is irreducibly self-referential” is irreducibly self-referential (or can be stated at all), but I'm afraid my brain had a meltdown just trying to unpack what this even means, so it's more of a silly comment than anything else. | |
| Mar 5, 2022 at 22:43 | history | asked | Noah Schweber | CC BY-SA 4.0 |