Timeline for A question about large cardinal axioms.
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2011 at 17:24 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | Oh, sure, I agree. And even on a purely pragmatic level, it is important to study both orderings, to be aware that they differ. | |
| May 3, 2011 at 17:20 | comment | added | Garabed Gulbenkian | 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. | |
| May 3, 2011 at 17:09 | vote | accept | Garabed Gulbenkian | ||
| May 3, 2011 at 14:58 | vote | accept | Garabed Gulbenkian | ||
| May 3, 2011 at 14:58 | |||||
| May 3, 2011 at 1:32 | history | edited | Andrés E. Caicedo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 483 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2011 at 1:22 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | 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! | |
| May 3, 2011 at 1:12 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | Wouldn't it be Woodinness? :) | |
| May 2, 2011 at 20:39 | history | answered | Andrés E. Caicedo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |