Talk:Cardinal: Difference between revisions
m restoring blanked content, no reason given |
Jackiespeel (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
Ok, I'm convinced. Cardinal number it is. --AxelBoldt |
Ok, I'm convinced. Cardinal number it is. --AxelBoldt |
||
As this refers to a subdivision/less obvious definition of the term, could it be emphasised that it is the number that is being referred to, not a religious person being away from their phone (g). [[User:Jackiespeel|Jackiespeel]] 18:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:08, 9 January 2006
The consistency of the existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals can not be proved under ZFC.
Is that correct? I thought the existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals can (provably) not be proved, while
it is open whether their non-existence can be proved.
In other words, "the consistency of the existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals" has not yet been proved
while the consistency of their non-existence has been proved.
Yes, your version is correct. That existence of inacc. cardinals cannot be proved is a direct consequence of the 2nd incompleteness theorem (one observes that the set of all sets with rank less than that of an inacc. cardinal form a model of ZFC).
Incidentally, wouldn't it be better to have the main article at Cardinal number? "Cardinal" has a pretty well-defined religious meaning as well, and "cardinal number" is not outdated.
--AV
not to mention the bird. And the baseball team.--MichaelTinkler
Ok, I'm convinced. Cardinal number it is. --AxelBoldt
As this refers to a subdivision/less obvious definition of the term, could it be emphasised that it is the number that is being referred to, not a religious person being away from their phone (g). Jackiespeel 18:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)