Timeline for The status of 'the consistency of NF relative to ZF'
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 10 at 11:26 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Changed link to point to the formalisation, not Holmes' own website (probably was a typo)
|
| May 4 at 3:01 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Fair enough! I've been following your travails since the announcement, and I cannot but admire your tenacity, and cannot complain if the proof is not 100% optimised! | |
| May 3 at 18:42 | comment | added | Randall Holmes | As far as I can tell, I need beth_omega_1. It might be possible to finesse things in the way you describe, but the problem is so hard that I just want a solution that works | |
| May 2 at 12:17 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Just out of curiosity: it really needs $\beth_{\omega_1}$, and not $\beth_\alpha$ for all countable $\alpha$? I ask because Borel Determinacy is often said to need Replacement for functions on $\omega_1$, but it turns out to only need Replacement for all countable ordinals. The answer is almost surely that you do need this beth, but I'm just wanting confirmation for this tiny itch. | |
| May 2 at 11:59 | history | edited | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added link to webpage
|
| May 1 at 14:21 | comment | added | Randall Holmes | Detail: I believe that NF is no stronger than bounded Zermelo set theory with infinity (the strength claim quoted above) but my proof does not show that. It requires enough replacement for the existence of beth_omega_1. | |
| May 1 at 14:20 | history | answered | Randall Holmes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |