Timeline for What would be some major consequences of the inconsistency of ZFC?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2012 at 15:11 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | This MO question contains further discussion of the inconsistency of PA: mathoverflow.net/questions/66121/is-pa-consistent-do-we-know-it | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 14:14 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | In case 4, one could imagine that the natural numbers are OK but that the use of arbitrarily deep nesting of quantifiers (in instances of the induction schema) is the source of the contradiction. Losing quantification would be (at least) as disastrous as losing the natural numbers, but I think it's a different disaster. (And I agree that my going crazy is far more likely than an actual inconsistency in PA.) | |
| Mar 11, 2012 at 17:23 | comment | added | Suvrit | Dear Henry, Thanks a lot for your erudite answer. | |
| Mar 11, 2012 at 17:21 | vote | accept | Suvrit | ||
| Mar 11, 2012 at 6:03 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | P.S. Regarding the cited abstract, it sounds like the claimed results are probably somewhere in category 2 or 3. However, like Mark pointed out, the paper is incoherent, so there is no evidence of danger to ZFC. | |
| Mar 11, 2012 at 5:39 | history | answered | Henry Cohn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |