• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Set theory discussion thread

Been looking for SRE's 0=1 Axiom scan but cant find any in the introduction thread..Any ideas where i can see it?
 
Btw , if a character reaches Tier 0 due to mentioning some high math , what would be the reason given in the attack potency section?

For example, the reason Manifold was 0 was due to Woodin Cardinals , what was the reason given in the profile of Downstreamers?
 
All honestly revolve around the universe of sets at some point so I will probably bet around a complete V (if possible) and cantors notion of absolute infinite at the top with the reflection principles of course.

Maybe V=Ultimate L below assuming V is complete, 0=1 equal or below this
HOD below if the Ultimate L conjecture holds and I probably don't have anything more in mind unless if im forgeting something.
(Kunens inconsistency is probably a good one as well)

set theory itself (mainly axiomatic theory) is based on assumptions and i doubt you can find a real top 5 unless if you assume V is complete.
(And hope it's consistent)
 
What's the poin of this thread if this cat is a non-nerdy catto?
 
Hey so i was just told in the SCP discussion thread that SCP is already beyond many large cardinals since it has 2 inaccessible transcendeces over Tier 0 ( as in for the sake of simplicity , a tier -2)

It this true? If it is , then what Large Cardinal does it scale and is it possible to scale to the highest levels of math with just transcendeces?
 
Pretty late but on vsbw standards probably just a mahlo cardinal. 1-mahlo would imply as many mahlo as inaccessible degrees as in 1-mahlo to mahlo is like how mahlo is to inaccessible so to put it short it's not that high into set theory.
 
hello everyone, so what is the largest cardinal ever exist in theoretical/philosophical mathematics ?
 
Andika_CL_atmadja said:
cardinality
Click to expand...
The biggest cardinality on well defined cardinals at the moment is not really clear but I can name some very big ones assuming we are not changing any definition or arithmetic here I guess you can call them one of the biggest namely superhuge -> Ultrahuge and cardinals that are trivially that may also qualify and extendibles to extendibles that are trivially that which may also qualify as well.
 
Last edited:
Cat275 said:
The biggest cardinality on well defined cardinals at the moment is not really clear but I can name some very big ones assuming we are not changing any definition or arithmetic here I guess you can call them one of the biggest namely superhuge -> Ultrahuge and cardinals that are trivially that may also qualify and extendibles to extendibles that are trivially that which may also qualify as well.
Click to expand...
i see, so the larger cardinal is, more inconsistent it become. So how about strength consistency ?
 
Andika_CL_atmadja said:
i see, so the larger cardinal is, more inconsistent it become.
Click to expand...
Not really just that some stronger cardinal don't witness the same cardinality of the properties as in you can have a cardinal witnessing weakening of a certain cardinal and it would be strength consistency stronger.
Andika_CL_atmadja said:
So how about strength consistency ?
Click to expand...
Not changing some formal or common definitions and arithmetic (like defining extendible in sigma-3 arithmetic instead of sigma-2 which causes extendibles>berkeley) then probably a club limit berkeley is what we would find in common.
 
Gasper said:
Hey, sorry to bother you, but do you know any verses that scale to the icarus set?
Click to expand...
Specifically? Not really no.

I don't imagine a verse saying this character scales to X is a subset of V{lambda+1} unless if they say the name itself.
 
Cat275 said:
Specifically? Not really no.

I don't imagine a verse saying this character scales to X is a subset of V{lambda+1} unless if they say the name itself.
Click to expand...
Ah i see.

One more question, what exactly is Ultimate V=L? Is it bigger than 0=1 or icarus set?
 
Gasper said:
Ah i see.

One more question, what exactly is Ultimate V=L? Is it bigger than 0=1 or icarus set?
Click to expand...
V=Ultimate L is stronger than a icarus set in pretty much either versions of it as far as I know.

0=1 is strength consistency stronger than V=Ultimate L from the current inner model theory we define.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Padaruyos
The General General General Discussion Thread
Replies
5
Views
821
Success0906
Success0906
DimeUhDozen
Totally Spies General Discussion Thread
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
DimeUhDozen
DimeUhDozen
Sans2345
People Playground General Discussion Thread
Replies
9
Views
1K
Vyfourthaccount
Vyfourthaccount
Sans2345
Death Forest General Discussion Thread
Replies
0
Views
668
Sans2345
Sans2345
Gasper
Doom Discussion Thread
Replies
1
Views
182
Oliver_de_jesus
Oliver_de_jesus
Back
Top