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 independence-results
Search options not deleted
user 4753
This tag is for questions about proving that some statement is independent from a theory, meaning it is neither provable nor refutable from that theory. Common examples are the continuum hypothesis from the axioms of ZFC, and the axiom of choice from the axioms of ZF.
6
votes
1
answer
268
views
$\omega_2$-sequence of Suslin trees
Is it possible to have an $\omega_2$-length sequence of ($\omega_1$-)Suslin trees such that if one builds the product of finitely many trees in that sequence, one ends up with a Suslin tree again?
Th …
- 2,180
3
votes
Formal proof of Con(ZFC) => Con(ZFC + not CH) in ZFC
The usual strategy to prove that the negation of $CH$ is consistent with $ZFC$ is the following: One shows (under the assumption $Con(ZFC)$ that for any finite fragment $T$ of $ZFC$ we have that $T+ …
- 2,180