Timeline for The Importance of ZF
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 2012 at 13:53 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Nate, Solovay himself told me precisely that, so I don't consider it merely folklore. To my way of thinking, the fact that most people did not give up AC and adopt that theory illustrates the enormous intuitive pull of the axiom of choice: it is far stronger than people sometimes describe. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 2:54 | comment | added | Nate Ackerman | I also heard (although it is folklore) that when Solovay first constructed his (here's an inline link) model in which all sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable and the axiom of dependent choice holds, he believed that at least some analysts would prefer to work with it than with the axiom of choice. | |
| Aug 16, 2012 at 2:51 | comment | added | Nate Ackerman | I would disagree with the statement that "nobody has been able to come up with an equally obviously “true” statement about sets that is not a consequence of these axioms". I would argue that the statement "all sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable" could be considered "obviously true" in the same way as the axiom of choice. I would also imagine that working in a model of set theory where all sets of reals had Lebesgue measure would be something very appeal to analysists (although I have no empirical evidence for this fact). | |
| Nov 15, 2009 at 2:09 | vote | accept | Jimmy Miller | ||
| Nov 15, 2009 at 2:09 | vote | accept | Jimmy Miller | ||
| Nov 15, 2009 at 2:09 | |||||
| Nov 14, 2009 at 18:09 | history | answered | Harald Hanche-Olsen | CC BY-SA 2.5 |