Timeline for Natural statements independent from true $\Pi^0_2$ sentences
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 7, 2019 at 21:30 | answer | added | andrey bovykin | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 22, 2011 at 0:43 | vote | accept | Kaveh | ||
| Nov 21, 2011 at 23:50 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | Depending on how strict your definition of "natural" is, even Paris-Harrington might not be considered "natural." The condition of having as many elements as the least element was not "studied in combinatorics for its own sake." | |
| Nov 21, 2011 at 23:46 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 20, 2011 at 21:11 | answer | added | none | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 18, 2011 at 1:39 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Andreas, yes, I fixed the title, thanks. | |
| Nov 18, 2011 at 1:29 | history | edited | Kaveh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed typo in the title
|
| Nov 18, 2011 at 0:29 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | I assume the $\Pi^0_2$ in the body of your question is what you intended and the $\Sigma^0_2$ in the title isn't. But just in case you're actually interested in the title question, I think the Paris-Harrington theorem answers that. The point is that true $\Sigma^0_2$ sentences are consequences of true $\Pi^0_1$ ones. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 17:50 | history | asked | Kaveh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |