Timeline for Con(PA) via non-well-foundedness?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30, 2023 at 16:43 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1616 characters in body
|
| Nov 30, 2023 at 14:59 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | The article is almost entirely about non-standad models! In the standard model, the universal algorithm outputs the empty sequence. The algorithm outputs a provably finite sequence because the number k in the proof is dropping, and since PA proves the numbers are well-ordered, this can drop only (nonstandardly) finitely many times. | |
| Nov 30, 2023 at 14:20 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | Your article doesn't actually use the terms "ill-founded" or "well-founded". What equivalent terms are you using there? | |
| Nov 30, 2023 at 13:33 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 151 characters in body
|
| Nov 30, 2023 at 13:33 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | Thanks! Curiously, nobody elaborated this viewpoint at mathoverflow.net/questions/458983/… | |
| Nov 30, 2023 at 13:12 | history | answered | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 4.0 |