Timeline for What's the difference between ZFC+Grothendieck, ZFC+inaccessible cardinals and Tarski-Grothendieck set theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Oct 6, 2020 at 23:59 | history | suggested | HDB | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed Link
|
| Oct 6, 2020 at 22:07 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 6, 2020 at 23:59 | |||||
| Aug 8, 2012 at 21:36 | comment | added | Gérard Lang | This is not an answer, but a repetition of my linked questions already stated in <mathoverflow.net/questions/28389>. 1/ Is it possible to dispense with axiom 4 (the axiom of pairing from ZF(C)) to develop the Tarski-Grothendieck (TG) set theory? 2/ Does anybody know how to prove the 16 equivalences between conditions of axioms A and A' of Tarski ? Gérard Lang | |
| Jul 23, 2012 at 20:41 | vote | accept | Mike Battaglia | ||
| Jul 23, 2012 at 6:55 | history | edited | Mike Battaglia | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
changed axiom "C" to "Ca" to not conflict with C being the axiom of choice
|
| Jul 23, 2012 at 6:54 | comment | added | Mike Battaglia | Fair enough. I'll change it to "Ca". | |
| Jul 22, 2012 at 18:58 | comment | added | John Bentin | "C" already denotes the axiom of choice, so it's not the best abbreviation for another axiom. | |
| Jul 22, 2012 at 1:10 | answer | added | Trevor Wilson | timeline score: 21 | |
| Jul 22, 2012 at 0:38 | history | asked | Mike Battaglia | CC BY-SA 3.0 |