tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF.)

DavidRoberts comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15649)

DavidRoberts — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:24:28 -0700

@Quinn - one needs 3k rep to see the vote counts.

Edit: I have just cast the fifth vote.

Quinn Culver comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15648)

Quinn Culver — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:06:11 -0700

@François Okay thanks. Where can I check the status of the votes to re-open?

quid comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15647)

quid — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:42:47 -0700

Deleted 'duplicate', sorry.

François G. Dorais comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15646)

François G. Dorais — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:42:32 -0700

That's for the community to decide. There are currently 3 votes to reopen; you need 5 votes to reopen the question.

Quinn Culver comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15645)

Quinn Culver — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:29:08 -0700

@François Will my question be considered for re-opening now that I've removed question 2?

François G. Dorais comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15639)

François G. Dorais — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:56:41 -0700

The recent edit eliminated the former question 2, which was the most problematic part.

The edited question overlaps with a bunch of earlier questions:

We can gather a very decent answer to the question by assembling the answers to the above. However, I don't see any exact duplicates in this list.

User Tip. Google is often a much better search engine than the MO search box. The list above was quickly gathered from the search site:mathoverflow.net large cardinals.

DavidRoberts comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15638)

DavidRoberts — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:30:25 -0700

@Will - actually I'm more familiar with the Californian reference, now that I'm reminded of it. Fires are a bigger problem here than waves.

Quinn Culver comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15637)

Quinn Culver — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:14:59 -0700

I significantly edited the question. Please let me know if it is still "subjective and argumentative".

Kaveh comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15635)

Kaveh — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 02:15:20 -0700

This is already posted on FOM.

Will Jagy comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15634)

Will Jagy — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 23:48:46 -0700

I suspect he means
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_One
in a general sense.
For Australia, maybe this movie gives the correct feel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Wave

DavidRoberts comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15632)

DavidRoberts — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 23:39:04 -0700

@ François

at the risk of fanning flames, what is The Big One?

François G. Dorais comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15631)

François G. Dorais — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 23:21:43 -0700

Question 1 is very palatable. It partly duplicates http://mathoverflow.net/questions/29302/reasons-to-believe-vopenkas-principle-huge-cardinals-are-consistent, but there is more to say on the subject of inaccessible than the answers there which focus on much larger cardinals.

Experience tells us that question 2 is inappropriate for MO. There has already been a summary thread on this kind of questions.

Question 3 is debatable. It may be entertaining to speculate about the effect of such a proof, but this is likely to resemble talk of The Big One. The impact on set theory would be disastrous in an unprecedented way, but the impact on mathematics as a whole would be comparatively very small. It is unlikely that this question has any kind of definite answer.

Andres Caicedo comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15630)

Andres Caicedo — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 23:19:09 -0700

A while ago there was a question on "arguments against large cardinals". The answers (included mine) explain that in fact there are no serious mathematical arguments against, while there is a significant body of evidence in favor, and a very active program the outcome of which adds to this evidence (or would uncover an inconsistency, were there to be one). I do not see any change in this respect. (I briefly looked at the papers when they were first posted in the arXiv.) If the question were to be reopened, I would therefore vote to close as duplicate.

theojf comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15627)

theojf — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:18:48 -0700

I am not well educated in set theory. This is a question that I would love to read answers to from the many experts who populate MO. That said, good answers do not good questions make. That said, I don't think the question is far from a good one, and I would be eager to reopen it if there's some editing out the rumors.

Will Jagy comments on "Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF." (15626)

Will Jagy — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:07:13 -0700

My impression is that
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/73121/recent-claim-that-inaccessibles-are-inconsistent-with-zf
is asked by a legitimate guy but is another argumentative item, like the P vs NP prrof or the Voevodsky battle. I already voted to close.