Timeline for Are there examples of statements that have been proven whose consistency proofs came before their proofs?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2017 at 21:07 | answer | added | Santi Spadaro | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 19, 2013 at 22:47 | answer | added | user33772 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 19, 2013 at 10:23 | answer | added | user33772 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 19, 2013 at 5:44 | answer | added | user33772 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 28, 2011 at 4:44 | vote | accept | Chris Jerdonek | ||
| Jul 28, 2011 at 4:42 | history | edited | Chris Jerdonek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed outdated info from "update" section after new responses.
|
| Jul 25, 2011 at 22:58 | answer | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | timeline score: 14 | |
| Jul 25, 2011 at 22:27 | answer | added | Not Mike | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 25, 2011 at 20:28 | answer | added | Ali Enayat | timeline score: 26 | |
| Jul 25, 2011 at 17:46 | vote | accept | Chris Jerdonek | ||
| Jul 26, 2011 at 4:05 | |||||
| Jul 25, 2011 at 17:46 | history | edited | Chris Jerdonek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 585 characters in body
|
| Jul 25, 2011 at 11:45 | answer | added | Juris Steprans | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jul 25, 2011 at 10:03 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 27 | |
| Jul 25, 2011 at 9:19 | comment | added | user3462 | Although I suspect that this might not be exactly what you want... | |
| Jul 25, 2011 at 9:18 | comment | added | user3462 | Martin's Borel determinacy paper appeared in 1975, but his analytic determinacy one appeared in 1970. The latter proved analytic determinacy assuming the existence of a measurable cardinal. Ref: Martin, Donald A. (1975). "Borel determinacy". Annals of Mathematics. Second Series 102 (2): 363–371 Martin, Donald A., Measurable cardinals and analytic games, Fund. Math. 66 (1970), 287-291 | |
| Jul 25, 2011 at 9:05 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | Yes. Sometimes it is easier to prove something first using additional axioms that are known to be consistent. Such a proof can be interpreted as a consistency proof for the system without the additional axiom. I don't have an example at hand, but there are several results that have been first shown using the continuum hypothesis and then shown to hold in general. | |
| Jul 25, 2011 at 8:08 | history | asked | Chris Jerdonek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |