Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Is this question acceptable?: Recent claim that inaccessibles are inconsistent with ZF.

Bottom of Page

1 to 15 of 15

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorWill Jagy
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2011 edited
     
    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.
    • CommentAuthortheojf
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2011
     

    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.

  3.  
    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.
  4.  

    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.

  5.  

    @ François

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

    • CommentAuthorWill Jagy
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2011 edited
     
    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
    • CommentAuthorKaveh
    • CommentTimeAug 18th 2011 edited
     

    This is already posted on FOM.

  8.  
    I significantly edited the question. Please let me know if it is still "subjective and argumentative".
  9.  

    @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.

  10.  

    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.

  11.  
    @François Will my question be considered for re-opening now that I've removed question 2?
  12.  

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

    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeAug 18th 2011 edited
     

    Deleted 'duplicate', sorry.

  14.  
    @François Okay thanks. Where can I check the status of the votes to re-open?
  15.  

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

    Edit: I have just cast the fifth vote.

1 to 15 of 15

  1.  
Back to Discussions Top of Page