Timeline for Nelson's program to show inconsistency of ZF
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Sep 12, 2015 at 20:23 | history | suggested | Logan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Such a bold claim has vast ramifications. That the claim has been withdrawn seems important enough to belong in the answer rather than relegated to a mere comment of the answer. Further, this completes the answer to OP's question (for now).
|
| Sep 12, 2015 at 20:06 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 12, 2015 at 20:23 | |||||
| Nov 17, 2011 at 21:15 | vote | accept | Andreas Thom | ||
| Oct 1, 2011 at 15:41 | comment | added | Michael Bächtold | the claim was withdrawn: golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2011/09/… | |
| Oct 1, 2011 at 15:40 | comment | added | godelian | It seems Nelson has withdrawn his claim. In any case I'd like to point out that the first section of chapter 1 of his (unfinished) book on the subject (math.princeton.edu/~nelson/books/elem.pdf, "Potential vs. actual infinity") still stands. I find it to be a great motivation for his search, regardless of the outcome. | |
| Sep 29, 2011 at 13:17 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | @Will Sawin: $l$ is supposed to be a fixed constant in the argument. Anyway, I came to the same conclusion as Terence Tao that Nelson’s proof is faulty, see golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2011/09/… . | |
| Sep 28, 2011 at 3:39 | comment | added | Will Sawin | "The latter derives a contradiction from the consideration of proofs of an entirely unrestricted kind, whereas the former derives a contradiction from the consideration of proofs of quite specific kinds, of bounded complexity." I don't see why this is true. His proof depends on welding together 2^l proofs, to make one large proof. This cannot be done in bounded complexity. | |
| Sep 27, 2011 at 11:29 | comment | added | Michael Bächtold | Nelsons article links to a book he is currently writing on the topic: math.princeton.edu/~nelson/books/elem.pdf | |
| Sep 27, 2011 at 6:50 | comment | added | Will Jagy | Yemon, yes, I was going along with the comic element introduced by mbsq. Still, if I had felt that msbq were actually worried about the future, I would not have posted anything. Finally, the Crawford book is pretty good. | |
| Sep 27, 2011 at 4:59 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @Sid: I think Will is, in his idiosyncratic way (no offence meant) riffing on the last sentence of mbsq. | |
| Sep 27, 2011 at 4:07 | comment | added | Opt | Maybe I'm missing something but what do the above two links have to do with the topic? | |
| Sep 27, 2011 at 3:45 | comment | added | Will Jagy | Also richardsennett.com/site/SENN/Templates/Home.aspx?pageid=1 | |
| Sep 27, 2011 at 3:43 | comment | added | Will Jagy | See matthewbcrawford.com | |
| Sep 27, 2011 at 2:38 | history | answered | Monroe Eskew | CC BY-SA 3.0 |