Asaf Karagila

Regarding this comment on upvotes. Your question was also downvoted by 14 users, at the time of posting this comment. It was also voted to close by 11 users (and only 10 votes to reopen, mind you).

I don't understand the problem with the specificity at History of Science and Mathematics, though. If I wanted to ask a question that David Roberts can answer, I'll start by emailing him, and then look for a place where people who might have the same knowledge can answer that same question (if he was unavailable). Are you looking for an answer, or do you want us to see that you've asked this question?

@PyRulez: This has nothing to do with being standard or not. This can be $\varnothing$ for all I care. There are $E$ and $E'$. And when you tell me that $\omega^M=\omega^{M'}$, then you are effectively telling me not only that it's essentially the same object, but that the inclusion map (or whatever canonical embedding you want to think of in this case) is witnessing that they are the same.

Then in what sense it's the same object????

@PyRulez: You can't in a single breath claim that $\omega$ is not changed, and then claim that it is. If $\omega$ is the same object, in the same that it is the same set, with the same elements, then $\in^M\restriction\omega^M=\in^{M'}\restriction\omega^{M'}$. Other than this, I have nothing more to add.

@Alex: It's better to finish this discussion over beer, perhaps someday.

@PyRulez: Of course, the one in $M$ or $M'$ (which doesn't matter if it's the same thing in the two modesl).

@Alex, PyRulez: Let me understand it, then. $\omega^M=\omega^{M'}$, and for every $x\in M$, including all those $x\in\omega^M$, $x\in H$ and $H$ is finite. So $\omega\subseteq H$. But $H$ is finite. Yes?

@Alex: You literally told me that $\omega^M=\omega^{M'}$, so I don't know what to make of this new comment of yours...

@Alex: But also $\omega^M\subset H$, since for every element of it, it will be in $H$. So if $H$ is finite, it means what?

No, it won't. Or the theory you describe is inconsistent. Those are the options.

You want to extend the model in a way that there is a finite set that contains every set from the original model. In particular, every set in that model is a subset of the finite set. You're confusing intension and extension.

Uh, no. The inclusion will be an injective map from any $S\in M$ into $H$, so it will be finite.

So... you want $M$ to be hereditarily finite in some larger (non-standard) extension?

Note that in the case that $\Lambda=\rm Ord$ we cannot actually prove that $\sf ZFC\vdash V_\Lambda\models ZFC$, since it is now a proper class without an internal truth predicate.

@MartinSleziak Yes.

Also, 5 results are returned now.

@MartinSleziak We are rewriting the whole thing, so we'll change a lot more.

I'll let you know when things have been updated.

I'd love to continue this chat, but it feels a bit pointless, and I do need to finish writing a grant proposal.

At the very least the http/s part.

I just think that had this been posted on meta.MO it would have been resolved before the holidays.

I'm not saying you did anything wrong. Again.

Again, I know, and I understand your and their confusion. But if you look into the reason why this is happening, you will see that this is something to do with the information coming back from zbMath.

Sure. My point is that the problem kinda had nothing to do with SE, and everything to do with MO's relationship with zbMath.

@MartinSleziak I somewhat disagree with that, but yes, on your end there's not much more to do.

It may take a month to get a revised formatting and some additional work through the SE hoops, but as far as changing the link and updating the information coming through the back-end, that is a few clicks for zbMath, especially the https issue.

You're conflating the forces that are in action here.

@MartinSleziak Presumably.

@MartinSleziak Just to let you know, I'm in touch with zbMath about updating the information from their back-end, and with SE about also updating the front-end. The https issue is going to be resolved quickly, as a starter.

Also, the point is that the feature request to change the formatting is almost entirely irrelevant to SE, it's first and foremost about the data coming from zbMath.

@MartinSleziak Yes, but since it is a fairly straightforward script and the majority of the code is formatting the output, I have a strong feeling that the SE devs would prefer to receive a bit of code from the MO people than to figure it out themselves.

@MartinSleziak It's not by design, but the data we are getting from zbMath is "broken", as to some extent is the citation helper (which to my understanding is somehow under my responsibility at this point). I've already asked the board members for the contact at zbMath for their server-side code, since that needs fixin' much more than our code does (in fact, if they fix their code, we might not need to do anything at all). Hopefully this will be easy and sort itself out next week. But probably not.

So there's no need to fight a losing battle with those. Not that you shouldn't do it, it's just a problem on a more global scale and your energy can be directed to other issues.

@MartinSleziak With regards to you fighting with http/https links for DOI links. I realised some time ago that there are some issues with the citation helper code as well as with the data we are getting from zbMath. It will be much simpler to let us try and fix this globally first and then ask SE to just update all the links in the background in one go.

@MartinSleziak Well. I do have some important things to do, and it would be a waste if I had come to the office and not done any of them. Have a nice day.

We all appreciate your work very much.

@MartinSleziak Nothing like that, I was just curious.

Ah, okay. I wasn't sure if the "recently bumped" referred to those November edits or something more recent. Thanks.

@MartinSleziak Just out of curiosity, mathoverflow.net/questions/28788/… seems to have somewhere around a dozen edits in the last hour. Which one was the one that bumped the thread?

I usually look at spam because someone flagged it as spam.

@MartinSleziak So, you look at 1-rep users; David Roberts avoids looking at 1-rep users. You can't please anyone!

s/need/want.

Yes, that's probably a good idea. I need to finish cleaning before the washing machine is done. And that's not going to happen, I think.

@MartinSleziak Yes, but what about nourishment for your brain and soul with some interesting set theory every now and then?

But I always thought my posts are interesting! :(

@MartinSleziak Yes, I agree that in that sense it is lacking. But again, one of the whole reasons to hide the reputation is to force people treat new users, at least in a glance, the same as established users.

Specifically, "I see your point on the questions lists".

The parenthetical remark at the end.