[FOM] Re: Why the definition of "large cardinal axiom" matters
Roger Bishop Jones
rbj01 at rbjones.com
Mon May 24 16:16:41 EDT 2004
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. 
Measurable Cardinals and the Continuum Hypothesis
Israel J. Math., 5, 234-248
- rbj01 at rbjones.com
plain text email please (non-executable attachments are OK)
More information about the FOM