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
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 36,537
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


Added to PP index

Total downloads
19 ( #330,031 of 2,302,520 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #273,476 of 2,302,520 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature