Difference between revisions of "User:C7X"

From Cantor's Attic
Jump to: navigation, search
(Future projects)
(Two-cardinal problem)
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Hey guys, Jack Black here. And I'm here to tell you about the most fantastic shape.
 
Hey guys, Jack Black here. And I'm here to tell you about the most fantastic shape.
==Future projects==
+
==Two-cardinal problem==
*[[User:C7X/Bachmann]]
+
Link: [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic/article/abs/hilary-putnam-a-note-on-constructible-sets-of-integers-notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic-vol-4-no-4-for-1963-pub-1964-pp-270273/5EF2C6C7868FEE4B4CEB17CA5CC71E60]
 +
 
 +
May not be useful when analyzing theories such as KP+"ω₂ exists". See context on Discord: [https://discord.com/channels/206932820206157824/211220899179921408/868570856144658472]
 +
 
 +
Message contents:
 +
 
 +
~~Work in a model M of KP+GCH+"ω₂ exists". If ω = γ < α = ω₁^M < ω₂^M, then can we apply Vaught's result internally in M?~~
 +
Edit: I don't think this has a use, since by assuming the existence of α,β s.t. <α,β>, we already assumed models of KP+GCH+"ω₂ exists" has that behavior in the first place

Revision as of 12:15, 24 July 2021

Hey guys, Jack Black here. And I'm here to tell you about the most fantastic shape.

Two-cardinal problem

Link: [1]

May not be useful when analyzing theories such as KP+"ω₂ exists". See context on Discord: [2]

Message contents:

~~Work in a model M of KP+GCH+"ω₂ exists". If ω = γ < α = ω₁^M < ω₂^M, then can we apply Vaught's result internally in M?~~
Edit: I don't think this has a use, since by assuming the existence of α,β s.t. <α,β>, we already assumed models of KP+GCH+"ω₂ exists" has that behavior in the first place