Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • $\begingroup$ Wouldn't it be Woodinness? :) $\endgroup$ Commented May 3, 2011 at 1:12
  • $\begingroup$ I knew there was something weird in that paragraph. But I was worried about whether to write "strength" or "strongness" (as Joel does), and ended up using neither and not fixing the typo. Thanks! $\endgroup$ Commented May 3, 2011 at 1:22
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks to you all for your very illuminating answers. Even though the relative size of the cardinals involved seems not to be a good way of ranking these axioms, it appears to me that the more we know about these relative sizes, the sharper becomes our intuitive picture of the universe (or the "possible universes") of set theory. $\endgroup$ Commented May 3, 2011 at 17:20
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, sure, I agree. And even on a purely pragmatic level, it is important to study both orderings, to be aware that they differ. $\endgroup$ Commented May 3, 2011 at 17:24