Timeline for Is the set of permissible numbers of models of various cardinalities computable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9, 2023 at 1:38 | answer | added | James E Hanson | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 7, 2023 at 22:37 | vote | accept | Noah Schweber | ||
| Sep 7, 2023 at 7:41 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 7, 2023 at 3:25 | answer | added | Alex Kruckman | timeline score: 13 | |
| Sep 6, 2023 at 19:22 | comment | added | James E Hanson | The question that I had been meaning to ask on MO (which has some overlap with this one) is whether there's a nicer characterization of $X$ than merely doing a brute force search through the collection of all finite groups of sufficiently large size. | |
| Sep 6, 2023 at 19:20 | comment | added | James E Hanson | Alex Kruckman sketched an argument to me that you only need to check finitely many finite groups to determine whether $(m,k)$ is in $X$, which would imply that it is computable. He should probably write the answer though, since I'm not fully comfortable with the relevant group-theoretic result. | |
| Sep 6, 2023 at 18:44 | history | asked | Noah Schweber | CC BY-SA 4.0 |