Timeline for What is the generic poset used in forcing, really?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2011 at 23:56 | vote | accept | David Roberts♦ | ||
| Jan 6, 2011 at 2:06 | comment | added | Jason | In regard to Stefan's answer, see related: mathoverflow.net/questions/48522/…. I think boolean-valued models form a very elegant and intuitive approach to forcing. | |
| Jan 6, 2011 at 0:07 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | Let me say something about the analogy that you mention (it is typical to compare forcing extensions to field extensions, and certainly it may help build some intuition to pursue the analogy). There is a serious discrepancy though: Given a typical field, there are several isomorphic fields that realize a concrete field extension. In set theory this does not happen, because (transitive) models are rigid. In particular, different generic objects for the same poset always give us non-isomorphic extensions. | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 21:47 | answer | added | Stefan Geschke | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 20:52 | answer | added | Mike Shulman | timeline score: 15 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 14:35 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 28 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 11:05 | answer | added | Jason | timeline score: 22 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 9:11 | answer | added | François G. Dorais | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 7:50 | history | asked | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |