317 reputation
110
bio website
location
age 25
visits member for 3 years, 5 months
seen Oct 10 at 22:49

Jul
2
awarded  Curious
Apr
30
revised Distinct polynomials with exactly one shared root
Clarify meaning of question.
Apr
30
comment Distinct polynomials with exactly one shared root
I guess that's right. I didn't state the question exactly right though. I'll post an edit. I meant to be looking at polynomials with rational coefficients. I'm not sure how much harder that problem will be.
Apr
30
asked Distinct polynomials with exactly one shared root
Mar
24
awarded  Custodian
Mar
24
reviewed Approve suggested edit on Is there an isomorphism between $\{\frac{m}{2^n}:m,n \in \mathbb{N} \text{ and } m < n\}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$
Mar
24
asked Is there an isomorphism between $\{\frac{m}{2^n}:m,n \in \mathbb{N} \text{ and } m < n\}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$
Mar
3
comment Uncountable Cardinals without AC
Actually, I think I got it. Every set of ordinals has an upper bound because we can just take the union of the set.
Mar
3
comment Uncountable Cardinals without AC
That clears up the questions I had. Another question... what justifies the use of the supremum in the proof. $ON$ is well ordered, so any set of ordinals with an upper bound should have a least upper bound. What guarantees that the set of order types of well orderings of subsets of $\omega$ has an upper bound at all?
Mar
3
accepted Uncountable Cardinals without AC
Mar
3
revised Uncountable Cardinals without AC
added 2 characters in body
Feb
27
asked Uncountable Cardinals without AC
Feb
22
comment Proving Separation from Replacement
In Kenneth Kunen's The Foundations of Mathematics, the Replacement Scheme is listed as $\forall x \in A \exists ! y \varphi(x,y) \rightarrow \exists B \forall x \in A \exists y \in B \varphi(x,y)$ (with $A$ universally quantified implicitly). I'm guessing that this is probably equivalent to the version used in Gaisi Takeuti & Wilson Zaring, Introduction to Axiomatic set theory. But it makes the desired proof slightly more difficult. There is more constraint on $\varphi$, so that in addition to being functional, its domain must be the entire set $A$.
Feb
18
asked Proving Separation from Replacement
Feb
18
comment How do the separation axioms follow from the replacement axioms?
If no element of $A$ satisfies $\phi$ then $X = \emptyset$. If we have the ability to use comprehension, then the existence of $\emptyset$ is straightforward. But without comprehension, I'm having a hard time seeing how we can show the existence of $\emptyset$.
Feb
18
comment How do the separation axioms follow from the replacement axioms?
The usual way I've seen the existence of $\{x\}$ established is through the use of pairing and separation. Since we're trying to show that these two axioms follow from replacement, they can't be used in that process. So how do we know that $\{x\}$ is a set?
Feb
18
comment The comprehension axioms follows from the replacement schema.
The version of the replacement axiom I've been using is this: $\forall x \in A \exists ! y \varphi(x,y) \rightarrow \exists B \forall x \in A \exists y \in B \varphi (x,y)$. With that I'm having difficulty seeing how the $\psi$ that you're using satisfies the axiom. Say for instance $\varphi(u)$ is false for some members of $A$. These would be counterexamples to $\forall x \in A \exists ! \varphi (x,y)$.
Dec
11
asked Cardinality of the set of all well formed formula in propositional logic?
Sep
28
accepted What are some reasonable things to prove about the Collatz Conjecture?
Sep
28
comment Is the union of finitely many open sets in an omega-cover contained within some member of the cover?
@BrianM.Scott Yeah, that's what I meant. I just made the change.