Skip to main content
15 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 10, 2018 at 16:35 answer added Thomas Benjamin timeline score: 2
Oct 2, 2011 at 0:23 answer added Andreas Blass timeline score: 6
Sep 28, 2011 at 7:04 comment added Asaf Karagila Andres, many thanks for putting time. However the two questions are just examples of forcing related theorems in the choiceless context. I am looking for a good place to start with such theorems, if it exists.
Sep 28, 2011 at 6:50 comment added Andrés E. Caicedo Hi Asaf, Only now I see this nice question. Busy life as usual, but I'll add something of substance if time permits. For now, the answer to 1 is no. Gitik's model where all cardinals are singular is a counterexample. Woodin has shown that in the choiceless setting, from very strong large cardinal assumptions (beyond embeddings from V to V) it follows that we can recover choice, but class forcing is needed in general. It would be fabulous if one could provide structure in Woodin's setting by identifying enough of it as a symmetric model. But V is in general a class symmetric extension of HOD.
Sep 27, 2011 at 17:28 answer added François G. Dorais timeline score: 3
Sep 27, 2011 at 15:08 history edited Asaf Karagila CC BY-SA 3.0
Added on the original intent.
Sep 26, 2011 at 18:52 answer added Noah Schweber timeline score: 8
Sep 26, 2011 at 18:08 history edited Asaf Karagila CC BY-SA 3.0
Theorems about forcing.
Sep 26, 2011 at 18:08 comment added Asaf Karagila Ricky, I was referring to forcing related theorems. Not general theorems. I will add this to the question for it to be clearer.
Sep 26, 2011 at 18:03 comment added user5810 "or with the relation between theorems proved in ZFC and the amount of choice needed for them to hold."
Sep 26, 2011 at 17:54 answer added Péter Komjáth timeline score: 5
Sep 26, 2011 at 16:32 comment added Asaf Karagila @Ricky: Are you sure? This is about consequences of AC, while I am looking for defining forcing in the lack thereof.
Sep 26, 2011 at 16:10 comment added Not Mike (retracted, was looking at the wrong paper.)
Sep 26, 2011 at 15:42 comment added user5810 Well, the canonical reference is books.google.com/….
Sep 26, 2011 at 15:37 history asked Asaf Karagila CC BY-SA 3.0