Timeline for Paradoxical Decompositions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2013 at 6:04 | vote | accept | Ali Enayat | ||
| Oct 15, 2013 at 0:27 | answer | added | Carlos | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jul 17, 2012 at 20:08 | comment | added | Trevor Wilson | Although I haven't read the Dougherty--Foreman paper, I remember Kechris telling me that their construction was effective, so this confirms your suspicion that Shelah's model does not answer your question. | |
| Aug 12, 2011 at 18:32 | comment | added | Ali Enayat | Joel: I see, I guess I was being too literal in answering you; but others may find this literal answer useful in clarifying the question. | |
| Aug 12, 2011 at 18:07 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Yes, Ali, I was merely trying to tease you, since you appeared to ask the question as a material implication. | |
| Aug 12, 2011 at 17:36 | comment | added | Ali Enayat | Joel: My question is motivated on the question whether "there is no paradoxical decomposition" has large cardinal strength. All relative consistency results are verifiable in Primitive Recursive Arithmetic (including the forcing ones), but for the purposes of my question, we can take the meta-theory to be PA or even second order arithmetic. | |
| Aug 12, 2011 at 17:06 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Ali, are you implicitly taking a position on the consistency of inaccessible cardinals? After all, if we believe Con(ZF+Inacc) is true, then the material implication of your question would follow by the Solovay result. But probably you mean to ask whether the implication is provable in some specific weak theory, such as ZFC or much weaker, rather than whether it is true. | |
| Aug 12, 2011 at 16:03 | history | asked | Ali Enayat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |