Timeline for answer to When must it be sets rather than proper classes, or vice-versa, outside of foundational mathematics? by Martin Brandenburg
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 29, 2021 at 18:09 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @AdamEpstein Nath Rao makes some potentially relevant remarks in the answer to another MO question. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Feb 3, 2013 at 19:46 | comment | added | Adam Epstein | Nice examples. Regarding the small object arguument, the transfinite construction has a formal parallel in Baer's proof that the categories R-mod have enough injectives and Grothendieck's abstraction to suitable abelian categories. Carrying this out requires much set theoretic infrastructure, enough for the execution of possibly unbounded transfinite recursions. This suggests that Replacement is in the air. McLarty observed that in the relevant context (Grothendieck toposes) there is an alternate route (ia the Barr cover) requiring far less set theory. How about for the small object argument? | |
| Feb 3, 2013 at 16:31 | history | answered | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |