User talk:Luminus1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Trovatore 20:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

large cardinals
I've given you the boilerplate welcome above. I'm particularly encouraged to see someone taking an interest in the large-cardinal pages. There's a lot of work to do if you're interested. Most of the individual pages have virtually nothing in the way of motivation or application; they're just bare definitions.

I've done a little minor cleanup at Rowbottom cardinal and Jónsson cardinal. To see my changes, go to the "History" tab, click the radio buttons for your last version and the current version, and hit the "diff" button. My reasons are explained briefly beside each change.

I'm curious about what's known about the consistency strength of strong compacts. I notice you said they're stronger than Woodin cardinals but didn't mention anything stronger. It's hard for me to imagine an argument for Woodins that wouldn't apply to some stronger and less technical things. Is it known, for example, whether they're stronger than superstrongs?

You might also weigh in on the issue of how to list the large cardinals in list of large cardinal properties (see the discussion page, Talk:List of large cardinal properties). It occurs to me that, technically, we could "property-ize" the statement "there are two measurable cardinals" by talking about the property of being a measurable cardinal with a measurable below, but that seems a bit silly. --Trovatore 20:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)