[FOM] Re: Why the definition of "large cardinal axiom" matters

[Roger Bishop Jones]

In response to my own previous question, in case
anyone else is interested...

On Tuesday 20 April 2004  8:21 pm, Roger Bishop Jones wrote:

> On Tuesday 20 April 2004  5:53 pm, Timothy Y. Chow wrote:

> > Levy-Solovay and Cohen showed that large cardinals cannot be
> > expected to settle CH.
> >
> > Or so I'm told...I don't understand their work myself. 
> > Could someone explain these results in intuitive terms?  (I
> > understand how to show that CH is independent of ZFC.)

> I wonder if anyone is able to expand on Woodin's reference
> which was just "(Levy Solovay, 1964; Cohen, 1965 )"?

According to Kunen this result is in:

Levy, A. and Solovay, R. [1967]
Measurable Cardinals and the Continuum Hypothesis
Israel J. Math., 5, 234-248

Roger Jones

- rbj01 at rbjones.com
   plain text email please (non-executable attachments are OK)