Timeline for Logical endofunctors of Set?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jul 30, 2023 at 1:30 | history | suggested | C7X | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
MathJaxify
|
| Jul 30, 2023 at 1:29 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 30, 2023 at 1:30 | |||||
| Sep 27, 2017 at 7:59 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Was there any progress on the wholeness axiom since this rather old post? I ask so as to get the informal explanation, rather than digging into any paper. | |
| Nov 19, 2009 at 22:10 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | Thanks! So certainly the consistency is below I3, since this Wholeness Axiom (where does that name come from?) will give a nontrivial logical endofunctor of Set. But it feels as though merely having a logical functor should be much weaker than any sort of elementary embedding. You're certainly right that there's an ambiguity in the question. But I'd be interested in answers to any of the possible ways of making it precise! | |
| Nov 19, 2009 at 20:24 | history | answered | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 2.5 |