Skip to main content
Jason Zesheng Chen's user avatar
Jason Zesheng Chen's user avatar
Jason Zesheng Chen's user avatar
Jason Zesheng Chen
  • Member for 5 years, 2 months
  • Last seen this week
comment
Can a mathematical definition be wrong?
@PeterShor Thank you so very much!
comment
Can a mathematical definition be wrong?
Sorry for the late comment, but is there any chance you could point me to some references for the definition missing the uniformity condition and the subsequent paper published by the three mathematicians?
awarded
revised
Examples of ZFC theorems proved via forcing
deleted 11 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Examples of ZFC theorems proved via forcing
added 109 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Examples of ZFC theorems proved via forcing
added 109 characters in body
Loading…
answered
Loading…
comment
History of (proposal of) set-theoretic foundations
Here's another data point. Hausdorff began his classic textbook Grundzüge der Mengenlehre (1914) with the claim "Die Mengenlehre ist das Fundament der gesamten Mathematik." on page 1. "Set theory is the foundation for the whole of mathematics".
awarded
revised
Loading…
revised
May two Cohen reals collapse cardinals?
Typo: same reals -> same cardinals
Loading…
awarded
awarded
suggested
Approve
comment
May two Cohen reals collapse cardinals?
Indeed. And in fact in the argument above we could have picked any $z$ to begin with. For instance a $z$ that codes the ordertype of $Ord^M$. The same argument will supply an example of two generic extensions with no common extension with the same ordinals, which the blockchain argument in Joel's paper and answer above can also demonstrated.
awarded
revised
May two Cohen reals collapse cardinals?
rolled back to a previous revision
Loading…
revised
May two Cohen reals collapse cardinals?
deleted 126 characters in body
Loading…
answered
Loading…
comment
Terminology for ordinals whose constructible level is the least one satisfying some formula
Joel, it seems to me that the sup of these metadefinable ordinals is exactly the first 1-stable. The key observation is that it's $\Sigma_1$ to say that a specific metadefinable ordinal is countable, and so there'll be an ordinal meta-defined by the ability to see this collapse map. This implies that the supremum $\sigma$ will have $L_\sigma$ ($\Sigma_1$-)pointwise definable. But then any $\Sigma_1$ formula true in $L$ with parameters from $L_\sigma$ is equivalent to a $\Sigma_1$ sentence. And so it must be true in some $L_\beta$ below $L_\sigma$ and hence in $L_\sigma$ by upward absoluteness.