Timeline for Does negative trichotomy hold for constructive ordinals?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 24, 2023 at 2:15 | comment | added | Jim Kingdon | I see your point about whether this answers the question but even if it doesn't quite fit the mathoverflow format I am glad to see some references to constructive literature on ordinals in case I do want to dig into this topic more deeply at some point. | |
| S Sep 23, 2023 at 5:57 | history | suggested | CalculatorFeline | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fix spelling
|
| Sep 22, 2023 at 21:30 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 23, 2023 at 5:57 | |||||
| Sep 22, 2023 at 11:09 | history | edited | Stefan Kohl♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Removed the last paragraph in response to a flag.
|
| Sep 21, 2023 at 19:38 | comment | added | Gro-Tsen | I'm sorry, but, between the various places where you explain that OP was somehow asking the “wrong” question, that everyone who still finds value in the law of excluded middle is an idiot, and that your new way of looking at things is better than the previous one, is there a place where you actually answer the question that was being asked? It's reasonable that you should want to promote your point of view, especially as your work was quoted in the question, but answers on MathOverflow are still meant to be answers, not explanations of the fact that the question is morally abhorrent. | |
| Sep 21, 2023 at 15:20 | history | answered | Paul Taylor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |