Timeline for Why should I believe Martin's Maximum++?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31 at 15:35 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 31 at 13:10 | comment | added | Gabe Goldberg | arpi.unipi.it/retrieve/0b5599b2-ecbd-496e-98d1-ae2a270b5ac2/… | |
| May 31 at 13:05 | comment | added | Gabe Goldberg | math.utoronto.ca/~stevo/Todorcevic_Structure5.pdf | |
| May 31 at 8:08 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 5 at 3:02 | |||||
| May 31 at 4:08 | comment | added | bof | Not being a logician or set theoretician, I don't even know what Martin's Maximum is, but I guess it's some kind of forcing axiom like Martin's Axiom. I never heard anyone claim that MA should be "believed"; I've heard an eminent set theoretician, talking about a result where he used MA, refer to it as "a blatantly false axiom". As far as I know, it's not regarded as any kind of truth, but merely a technical tool for proving consistency results. I guess the case with MM++ (whatever that is) is similar, but I know nothing. | |
| May 31 at 3:14 | history | asked | Ember Edison | CC BY-SA 4.0 |