Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Question

Became Hot Network Question
added 1 character in body
Source Link
Dave Benson
Dave Benson
  • 16.2k
  • 2
  • 42
  • 95

Lately I have been studying in the subject of degree theory, specifically definability results related to $\mathcal{D}$. A famous conjecture in the field due to Slaman and Woodin is that the only automprhismautomorphism group of $\mathcal{D}$ is the trivial one. However, it seems in the 1999 paper: "Upper cones as automorphism bases" Cooper gives a counterexample which is pointed out in other sources to be wrong. What is the fault of his argument?

Lately I have been studying in the subject of degree theory, specifically definability results related to $\mathcal{D}$. A famous conjecture in the field due to Slaman and Woodin is that the only automprhism group of $\mathcal{D}$ is the trivial one. However, it seems in the 1999 paper: "Upper cones as automorphism bases" Cooper gives a counterexample which is pointed out in other sources to be wrong. What is the fault of his argument?

Lately I have been studying in the subject of degree theory, specifically definability results related to $\mathcal{D}$. A famous conjecture in the field due to Slaman and Woodin is that the only automorphism group of $\mathcal{D}$ is the trivial one. However, it seems in the 1999 paper: "Upper cones as automorphism bases" Cooper gives a counterexample which is pointed out in other sources to be wrong. What is the fault of his argument?

Source Link
H.C Manu
H.C Manu
  • 893
  • 6
  • 14

What is the flaw in Cooper's argument?

Lately I have been studying in the subject of degree theory, specifically definability results related to $\mathcal{D}$. A famous conjecture in the field due to Slaman and Woodin is that the only automprhism group of $\mathcal{D}$ is the trivial one. However, it seems in the 1999 paper: "Upper cones as automorphism bases" Cooper gives a counterexample which is pointed out in other sources to be wrong. What is the fault of his argument?