[FOM] role of large cardinals

[Colin McLarty]

This is true when you consider consistency strengths above that of ZF,
and if you think of elementary embedding principles as a form of large
cardinal axioms.  At the level of Second order Arithmetic and below,
comprehension and induction axioms are the usual measuring stick.  I
guess that is true below the level of Simple Type Theory. Between that
level and ZF I like a lot of results i have seen but I do not have a
strong idea of how those results are or should be seen by experts.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:08 PM,  <meskew at math.uci.edu> wrote:
> I recently wrote the following paragraph-fragment.  I would appreciate any
> critiques of the assertions, especially if you disagree with the last
> thing starting with "the fact that..."
>
> In contemporary logic, there is a wide-ranging consensus that the
> traditional large cardinal axioms are the appropriate measuring-stick for
> gauging the logical strength and showing the consistency of any
> mathematical statement.  The main reasons for this are their mutual
> compatibility, their success in the role so far, and the fact that there
> is no known example of a possibly-consistent hypothesis whose strength can
> be shown to transcend the large cardinal notions.
>
> Thanks!
> Monroe
>
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom