Timeline for Explicit uses of alephs above 'small ones'
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 2017 at 6:26 | vote | accept | David Roberts♦ | ||
| Nov 17, 2010 at 4:56 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | @David: Done. $ $ | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 4:46 | answer | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | timeline score: 18 | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 4:14 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @Andres - your comment would be good as an answer, so as to help future researchers, rather than being buried in comments. | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 3:40 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @Andres - so 736 is just some random natural number >> 1? (The statement in question is $2^{\aleph_0} < \aleph_{736}$) I guess it is the conclusion 0.10 that is the important point, but perhaps I like my logicians to be more precise than picking a number out of a hat. | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 2:12 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Nov 17, 2010 at 2:12 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @Joel something like that. Something that makes one wonder 'why that specific aleph?' | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 2:12 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Since the arxiv has Shelah as the author, I would use Shelah if for no other reason than to find the paper in the arxiv. Also, the author seems to use the spelling "Shelah" in most, if not all, of his publications. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2010.11.16 | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 2:10 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Opps!1 fixed. Got confused with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selah | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 2:06 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Clarified question; added 2 characters in body
|
| Nov 17, 2010 at 2:01 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Isn't it usually spelled 'Shelah'? I hardly know anything about transliteration schemes from Semitic languages, but I've never seen it spelled like this. | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 2:00 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Well, probably. But if there was an instance of $\aleph_{25\omega^2 + 1001}$ that was genuinely needed - in isolation, and not like in Gentzen's proof of the consistency of PA or similar, I would accept that. In fact I'll edit the question accordingly. | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 1:50 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | You probably mean $n$ to be a natural number? | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 1:28 | history | asked | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |