Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that P1 of the supporting argument assumes κ-many inaccessibles below κ, but this requires assuming consistency strength beyond what the definition of weak compactness alone entails.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Weak compactness is known to imply that κ is inaccessible, so inaccessibles below κ follow naturally from the definition without extra assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates consistency strength of a theory with logical consequences; weak compactness directly yields inaccessibility results in standard set theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No gap exists between weak compactness' definition and its standard consequences in ZFC—the argument overstates what 'beyond definition' actually requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Weak compactness is defined via combinatorial properties without explicit large cardinal assumptions, so invoking κ-many inaccessibles goes beyond its definitional content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The argument conflates what weak compactness entails directly with what consistency strength is needed to prove certain theorems about weakly compact cardinals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Standard results show κ-inaccessibility below κ requires additional assumptions beyond the weak compactness axiom itself.
      ?

      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.