Timeline for Regarding my question: "Can only the constructible sets be proven to exist in $ZF$...."
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26, 2017 at 13:32 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | (@მამუკაჯიბლაძე As a point of actual "meta", the software prevents the OP from deleting his post because there are upvoted answers; this has nothing to do with the topic of his post of course. What I don't understand is what comes after that, where supposedly "the situation [is] impossible to rectify". But it may be best to let tempers cool for a while.) | |
| Aug 26, 2017 at 11:56 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე |
Could you please clarify what do you mean by That the 'reviewers' have answered the questions in the manner they have (for though ZF can possibly prove that there exist constructible sets, it cannot prove the existence (without extra axioms) the existence of non-constructible sets) makes it impossible to delete the question without possible penalty.?
|
|
| Aug 26, 2017 at 10:51 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo in the title
|
| Aug 25, 2017 at 22:50 | answer | added | Noah Schweber | timeline score: 12 | |
| Aug 25, 2017 at 14:24 | comment | added | Thomas Benjamin | @ToddTrimble: very helpful. Thanks. I will mention your observation in a comment to him (giving you due credit, of course). | |
| Aug 25, 2017 at 13:30 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | So, one suggestion is to engage Noah below his answer, if you consider his answer not to be relevant to the issues you raise. Actually I think his answer might be worth fleshing out (either publicly on MO or in the privacy of your room), because what one even means by $0^\sharp$ is somewhat subtle, due to Tarski's result on undefinability of truth. | |
| Aug 25, 2017 at 12:14 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | Thomas, in my previous comment I interpreted "reviewers" as people like Asaf and Noah (since you refer to reviewers who answered the questions in the manner they have). In other words, the reviewers here seem to be people who have honestly tried to engage with the question and give helpful feedback. They interpreted the question as best they could and tried to answer the question thus interpreted (Noah's seems very helpful to me, as he wrote down a formula for a set that ZF cannot prove is constructible.) If he didn't answer the question you meant, nothing stops you from further clarification. | |
| Aug 25, 2017 at 5:08 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
added (specific-question) tag; if the question is meant only an example and you want it fact discuss a more general issue, please make this clear in the post and remove the tag
|
|
| Aug 24, 2017 at 16:42 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | (Martin: maybe, but in the first place I am skeptical that this question is on-topic here.) Thomas, you need to ask them mathematical questions directly at the question, as opposed to raising charges of "harassment" here, and putting "reviewers" in inverted commas and other forms of rudeness. You are certainly free to edit the question yourself, if you determine from discussion there that you've committed conceptual errors. | |
| Aug 24, 2017 at 16:35 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | I guess this should be tagged (specific-question), see the tag-info. | |
| Aug 24, 2017 at 16:30 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | I really wish people would link to their concern on MO main rather than make others hunt it down. mathoverflow.net/questions/278720/… | |
| Aug 24, 2017 at 16:03 | history | asked | Thomas Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |