Timeline for Is there any formal foundation to ultrafinitism?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 21, 2022 at 10:59 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Nov 28, 2012 at 10:01 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Ok, done. Only taken two years... :-) | |
| Nov 28, 2012 at 10:00 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Nov 28, 2012 at 6:23 | comment | added | Toby Bartels | Yes, that would be correct. | |
| Sep 9, 2011 at 23:14 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Hm, ok. Would it be ok if I just changed it to 'latter version minus function sets (the '$\Pi$'..' | |
| Sep 9, 2011 at 22:24 | comment | added | Toby Bartels | Still a minor error: you identify the "Π" "Π-pretopos" as power sets, but it's actually function sets (exponentials). Palmgren's theory, being (weakly) predicative, already lacks power sets (and it's possible to have function sets without power sets because of the intuitionistic logic). | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 0:47 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2010 at 0:46 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Ah, thanks. I'll edit the answer to reflect that. | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 0:30 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | A Π-pretopos still has exponentials, which means that $n^m$ will still exist. So I think you want a non-Π pretopos if you want to exclude exponentials. | |
| Oct 30, 2010 at 8:03 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 418 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2010 at 7:41 | history | answered | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |