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 reverse-math
Search options not deleted
user 497904
The general enterprise of calibrating the strength of classical mathematical theorems in terms of the axioms, typically of set existence, needed to prove them; originated in its modern form in the 1970s by H. Friedman and S. G. Simpson (see R.A. Shore, "Reverse Mathematics: The Playground of Logic", 2010).
7
votes
1
answer
316
views
Strength of Borel determinacy
In this blog post by Gowers on Borel determinacy, Andres Caicedo says the following in a comment (slightly rephrased).
Let $\mathsf{ZFC^-}$ be $\mathsf{ZFC}$ without power set and $\mathsf{ZC^-}$ be …
- 2,153