Timeline for Minimal subset of axioms for ZFC
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 4, 2011 at 18:13 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | If you drop pairing, nothing happens, because pairing is provable from replacement (which you'll need anyway) and the existence of any set with at least two elements. | |
| Dec 6, 2010 at 6:15 | comment | added | Stefan Geschke | Just one more observation: I have absolutely no intuition of what happens if you drop pairing, but I would guess that it will be difficult to say anything reasonable if you cannot talk about ordered pairs (which seem to require unordered pairs for their construction). Not strictly a subset of ZFC, but a weakening nonetheless: You could try to get away with singletons and finite unions instead of Pairing and arbitrary unions. | |
| Dec 5, 2010 at 16:56 | comment | added | Ewan Delanoy | @Stefan : indeed, "abstraction scheme" means "separation scheme". I updated the OP by adding the power set axiom to my favorite candidate for a minimal axiom system. | |
| Dec 5, 2010 at 15:33 | history | edited | Stefan Geschke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 538 characters in body; added 71 characters in body; added 81 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2010 at 15:26 | history | edited | Stefan Geschke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2010 at 15:21 | history | edited | Stefan Geschke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 344 characters in body; added 387 characters in body; added 15 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2010 at 15:13 | history | edited | Stefan Geschke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 258 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2010 at 15:03 | history | answered | Stefan Geschke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |