Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with set-theory
Search options not deleted
user 2294
forcing, large cardinals, descriptive set theory, infinite combinatorics, cardinal characteristics, forcing axioms, ultrapowers, measures, reflection, pcf theory, models of set theory, axioms of set theory, independence, axiom of choice, continuum hypothesis, determinacy, Borel equivalence relations, Boolean-valued models, embeddings, orders, relations, transfinite recursion, set theory as a foundation of mathematics, the philosophy of set theory.
6
votes
Succinctly naming big numbers: ZFC versus Busy-Beaver
This isn't an answer, but it's too long for a comment.
I don't think the computable ordinals are well enough defined for the function $f(n)$ to work. Suppose you give me a system mapping {$0,1$}$^* $ …
- 6,342
4
votes
Succinctly naming big numbers: ZFC versus Busy-Beaver
I have another question which is too long to fit into a comment: how do you even know that $f(n)$ is increasing?
If you have two Turing Machines $M$ and $M'$ that realize the same ordinal $\alpha$, …
- 6,342