Intereting Posts

Interpretation of Standard Deviation independent of the distribution?
On finding polynomials that approximate a function and its derivative (extensions of Stone-Weierstrass?)
In Godel's first incompleteness theorem, what is the appropriate notion of interpretation function?
How many digits of $\pi$ are currently known?
Visualizing tuples $(a,b,x,y)$ of the extended Euclidean algorithm in a four-dimensional tesseract. Are there hidden symmetries?
How to calculate integral of $\int_0^\sqrt4\!\sqrt\frac{x}{4-x^{3/2}}\,\mathrm{d}x$
On what interval does a Taylor series approximate (or equal?) its function?
Show that this entire function is polynomial.
Continuous extension of a Bounded Holomorphic Function on $\mathbb{C}\setminus K$
i need help please help me nonlinear partial differential equations
How can I visualize a four-dimensional point inside a Schlegel diagram of a tesseract?
Prove that given any rational number there exists another greater than or equal to it that differs by less than $\frac 1n$
Why is the cardinality of irrational numbers greater than rational numbers?
A question on measure space and measurable function
Real roots of a polynomial of real co-efficients , with the co-efficients of $x^2 , x$ and the constant term all $1$

ZFC can’t prove that strongly inaccessible cardinals exist, or else it would prove that a model of itself exists and hence $Con(ZFC)$. So this leaves us with two options:

- ZFC proves there are no strongly inaccessible cardinals
- The existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals is independent from ZFC

I’ve heard, however, that you can’t actually prove that it’s #2. That is, you can’t prove the independence of large cardinal axioms from ZFC. Why is this?

At first, I thought it was because proving independence would mean that ZFC proves the consistency of a larger theory that contains ZFC as a model. However, I don’t think my reasoning was right. That wouldn’t prove that a model exists – just that a model *could* exist. And isn’t it proven that Con(ZFC) is independent from ZFC, and hence that ZFC + Con(ZFC) is consistent iff ZFC is?

- Foundation for analysis without axiom of choice?
- Is ZFC not foundation of mathematics?
- Do any authors systematically distinguish between 'theorems' (which have 'proofs') and mathematical 'beliefs' (which have 'evidence')?
- clarify the term “arithmetics” when talking about Gödel's incompleteness theorems
- Does mathematics require axioms?
- Infinite sets don't exist!?

So how do you show that you can’t show the independence of large cardinal axioms?

- Looking for counterexamples where the output of a computable function always has a computably checkable property, but PA cannot prove this
- Why can't you add apples and oranges, but you can multiply and divide them?
- Is Godel's modified liar an illogical statement?
- The standard role of intuitive numbers in the foundations of mathematics
- Aftermath of the incompletness theorem proof
- Infinite sets don't exist!?
- On the large cardinals foundations of categories
- Logic soundness and completeness
- Decidability of the Riemann Hypothesis vs. the Goldbach Conjecture
- Meta Theory when studying Set Theory

Well. In order to establish “true independence” you need to show that $\sf ZFC$ is consistent with both the statement and its negation, at least assuming that $\sf ZFC$ is consistent.

However just assuming that $\sf ZFC$ is consistent is not enough to establish that $\sf ZFC$+large cardinal axioms are consistent, because from large cardinal axioms we can prove the consistency of $\sf ZFC$; thus a proof of consistency *from* $\sf ZFC$ of large cardinal axioms will ultimately prove the consistency of $\sf ZFC$, and by the second incompleteness theorem this is impossible.

So you can only prove that $\sf ZFC$ does not prove the existence of large cardinals, not that it does not refute them.

And indeed every now and then you can find people claiming to have proofs that inaccessible cardinals are inconsistent with $\sf ZFC$.

(The situation is similar with $\sf ZFC+\operatorname{Con}(ZFC)$, which is also strictly stronger than just $\sf ZFC$ in terms of consistency. But I don’t think anyone who seriously considers $\sf ZFC$ a reasonable theory thinks it is inconsistent, so this assumption gets questioned far less often than inaccessible cardinals.)

*Caveat lector:*

Relative consistency results about $\sf ZFC$ and assumptions stronger than $\sf ZFC$ itself will depend a lot on the meta-theory. If you work in a theory which assumes $\sf\operatorname{Con}(ZFC)+\lnot\operatorname{Con}(ZFC+LC)$, then $\sf ZFC$ will refute large cardinals in that meta-theory. Because there will be a “natural number” encoding a proof of contradiction in a way recognizable by $\sf ZFC$.

The point is that when you want to talk about the ability to refute something stronger than $\sf ZFC$ you need to ask yourself what sort of meta-theory you have. If inaccessible cardinals are refutable from $\sf ZFC$, that’s great (or actually the other thing, sucky); if not, then the question if they are refutable becomes meta-theory dependent.

- Variance of event counting
- Assume that $ 1a_1+2a_2+\cdots+na_n=1$, where the $a_j$ are real numbers.
- Prove $\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{3a\sin^2\theta}{(1-a\cos \theta)^4}\mathrm{d}\theta = \int_0^{2\pi}\frac{\cos \theta}{(1-a\cos \theta)^3}\,\mathrm{d}\theta$
- How to compute this finite sum $\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{k}{2^k} + \frac{n}{2^n}$?
- Showing that an integral domain is a PID if it satisfies two conditions
- Calculus of variations ( interpreting the minimum in first order)
- Finding the rate of change in direction
- Structure of antiautomorphisms of a group
- Centroids of a polygon
- Unramification of a prime ideal in an order of a finite Galois extension of an algebraic number field
- Secretary problem – why is the optimal solution optimal?
- Calculate the slope of a line passing through the intersection of two lines
- Approximation to $ \sqrt{2}$
- $\mathbb Z$ contains infinitely many units
- Gerrymandering/Optimization of electoral districts for one particular party