Timeline for mutually incompatible abstraction terms?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2011 at 18:02 | comment | added | Ewan Delanoy | @Francois : you're right, your trick still works in my updated version and I should have thought more before posting it on mathoverflow. As I found a new idea, I indulged in a breach of mathoverflow etiquette by erasing the old update's content and replacing it with a new content. Hopefully this new update will be more resistant to simple attacks. | |
| Sep 15, 2011 at 17:53 | history | edited | Ewan Delanoy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved the original question; added 1 characters in body; added 1 characters in body
|
| Sep 15, 2011 at 5:03 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | At least (as of this writing), it is an edit ahead of its time. Gerhard "What Day Is It Again?" Paseman, 2011.09.18 | |
| Sep 15, 2011 at 3:55 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | (My trick still works for the new version, unless maybe if the final sentence was supposed to involve T rather than ZFC.) | |
| Sep 15, 2011 at 3:50 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | What prevents me from taking a completion of ZFC for T? | |
| Sep 15, 2011 at 3:36 | history | edited | Ewan Delanoy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved the original question
|
| Sep 11, 2011 at 17:26 | answer | added | Flash Sheridan | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 10, 2011 at 13:01 | vote | accept | Ewan Delanoy | ||
| Sep 10, 2011 at 12:06 | answer | added | François G. Dorais | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 10, 2011 at 11:02 | history | asked | Ewan Delanoy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |