Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that L's 'thinness' is relative to a background universe; from within L, all cardinals satisfy L's own definability conditions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If L's thinness is merely relative, this threatens absolutism about mathematical truth; some claim L's structure should be intrinsically objective.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates two distinct facts: L being definable relative to V, versus cardinal properties being relative; the latter seems to confuse internal and external perspectives.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
From within L, the claim that 'all cardinals satisfy L's conditions' is trivially true but uninformative; it obscures that fewer sets exist in L than V.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
L is definable within ZFC but not absolutely definable; its thinness depends on comparing it against V, which is background-relative.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Within L's own internal logic, all ordinals and cardinals satisfy L's constructibility conditions by definition—no external comparison needed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Different models of set theory contain different versions of L with different cardinalities, confirming L's properties are relative to ambient universe.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42