Similar but not the same: Various versions of ♣ do not coincide

Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (1):180 - 198 (1999)
We consider various versions of the ♣ principle. This principle is a known consequence of $\lozenge$ . It is well known that $\lozenge$ is not sensitive to minor changes in its definition, e.g., changing the guessing requirement form "guessing exactly" to "guessing modulo a finite set". We show however, that this is not true for ♣. We consider some other variants of ♣ as well
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2307/2586758
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,201
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

14 ( #314,241 of 1,940,944 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #457,798 of 1,940,944 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.