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 9896
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.
1
vote
5
answers
2k
views
Why do we ignore non-standard finite sets in ordinary mathematics?
Here is a how a typical proof might look like in group theory--- Suppose we are given a finite group $G$. Enumerate the elements $g_1, \dots, g_n$. Now consider a formula $\phi(g_1, \dots, g_n)$ which …
- 3,475
0
votes
Seemingly complex logic/set-theoretic puzzle
Based on the answers proposed to this question, I think this problem is ill-defined. The set of possible questions and assignment of truth valuations is not well defined. A fair definition of a "quest …
- 3,475