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

Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (1):180 - 198 (1999)
Abstract
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
Options
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: 33,657
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

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
17 ( #332,555 of 2,261,203 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #389,246 of 2,261,203 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature