Skip to main content
Wojowu's user avatar
Wojowu's user avatar
Wojowu's user avatar
Wojowu
  • Member for 11 years, 11 months
  • Last seen this week
comment
Groups with no homomorphisms onto $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$
Don't know of a name, but it's equivalent to the abelianization having order not divisible by $p$.
comment
comment
What gets to be called a "proper class?"
At least in the ZF(C) context, the term "class" is commonly used for a collection of sets which is definable (with parameters). A proper class is any such definable collection which is itself not a set. Separation then asserts that any subclass of a set is itself a set.
comment
Open problems in complete theories
Some answers here may apply.
comment
Is Foundation necessary to prove the equivalence of limitation of size with the existence of a surjection from On into the universal class?
You don't even need the "local choice axiom" - if U is bijective to On, then any proper class is bijective with a subclass of On, and any proper subclass of On is in bijection with On itself.
awarded
comment
Is it known that the Collatz-like sequence with 7n+1 diverges to infinity starting with 7?
I wouldn't say we can "almost prove this for $1093n+1$". We only know it doesn't reach 1, we can prove nothing regarding divergence.
Loading…
Loading…
comment
Which ordinals can be proof-theoretic ordinals of a reasonable theory?
@C7X I'm uncertain what I meant 10 years ago but I think replacing it with "PTO of ... is $\leq\gamma$" would match what I was after. But then again by now I am aware this is very sensitive to how the well-orders are coded and just speaking of ordinals on their own doesn't make sense here, so I'm not sure how meaningful that question is.
comment
Does a group representation being transitive on a basis imply irreducibility?
$C_2$ acts on $\mathbb C^2$ by swapping the coordinates, and acts transitively on the standard basis, but is reducible.
awarded
awarded
revised
Examples of eventual counterexamples
Added details about the size of the counterexample
Loading…
comment
Error in an argument using spectral theory
An easy way to see this sequence is not periodic is that the density of $k$ for which $\xi(k)=1$ is equal to $1/\sqrt{2}$.
comment
Is it possible to consistently and naturally define this subset of Hardy field?
"Germs that form a field" does not specify the field uniquely. The ring of germs has many distinct maximal subfields. And the elements whose derivatives are eventually nonzero does not form a ring, let alone a field.
comment
Is it possible to consistently and naturally define this subset of Hardy field?
But a Hardy field cannot contain all of those germs. I didn't downvote the question, though it would do with some clarifications. I downvoted your answer since without those clarifications it is simply wrong, the ring of all smooth germs at infinity doesn't embed into surreals.
comment
Is it possible to consistently and naturally define this subset of Hardy field?
That's not a field. It's also not an integral domain so definitely doesn't embed into surreals.
comment
Is it possible to consistently and naturally define this subset of Hardy field?
Apologies, I meant germs of rational functions. They form the smallest Hardy field containing polynomials.
comment
Is it possible to consistently and naturally define this subset of Hardy field?
You say "the Hardy field", do you have a specific one in mind? For instance for $H$ the field of (germs of) rational numbers, you can take $H_I$ to be the subring of (germs of) polynomials.
1
3 4
5
6 7
155