Skip to main content
Became Hot Network Question
deleted 1 character in body
Source Link
Gabe Goldberg
  • 8.1k
  • 1
  • 37
  • 45

When it is said that Kunen inconsistency theorem proves that given $\sf ZFC$ no elementary embedding can exist from the universe to itself. Most references quote full choice in stating that result, and contemplate a salvage by forsaking choice altogether like in Rheinhardt'sReinhardt's cardinals setting.

Is there a known weaker form of choice, like dependent or countable choice, that can evade this theorem?

When it is said that Kunen inconsistency theorem proves that given $\sf ZFC$ no elementary embedding can exist from the universe to itself. Most references quote full choice in stating that result, and contemplate a salvage by forsaking choice altogether like in Rheinhardt's cardinals setting.

Is there a known weaker form of choice, like dependent or countable choice, that can evade this theorem?

When it is said that Kunen inconsistency theorem proves that given $\sf ZFC$ no elementary embedding can exist from the universe to itself. Most references quote full choice in stating that result, and contemplate a salvage by forsaking choice altogether like in Reinhardt's cardinals setting.

Is there a known weaker form of choice, like dependent or countable choice, that can evade this theorem?

Source Link
Zuhair Al-Johar
  • 11.3k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 47

Is there a form of choice that can elude Kunen's inconsistency theorem?

When it is said that Kunen inconsistency theorem proves that given $\sf ZFC$ no elementary embedding can exist from the universe to itself. Most references quote full choice in stating that result, and contemplate a salvage by forsaking choice altogether like in Rheinhardt's cardinals setting.

Is there a known weaker form of choice, like dependent or countable choice, that can evade this theorem?