Timeline for Does the Rieger-Nishimura lattice over a subset of $\mathbb{R}^k$ stabilize?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2022 at 9:30 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | (I fixed the reference, which mistakenly pointed to a review of Tarski’s paper rather than the paper itself.) The argument is more or less constructive, but intuitively I’d say it’s not very helpful (you construct a tree of sets inductively by manipulating basis elements to get what you want them to do). | |
| Dec 9, 2022 at 9:24 | history | edited | Emil Jeřábek | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fix reference
|
| Dec 9, 2022 at 9:11 | comment | added | Gro-Tsen | This answers my question, and I didn't know that the frame of opens of $\mathbb{R}^k$ is complete for intuitionistic propositional calculus. But I admit I was hoping for an explicit example of an open set $P$ with all $R(P,X,m)$ distinct, because the point is to help my intuition with $R(\bullet,\bullet,m)$ for $m$ large. Do you think Tarski's paper is “constructive” (in an informal sense of the word) so that it could provide such an example? | |
| Dec 9, 2022 at 8:59 | history | answered | Emil Jeřábek | CC BY-SA 4.0 |