Joel David Hamkins

mathematics and philosophy of the infinite

Search

Main menu

Skip to primary content

Skip to secondary content

Home
Publications
Talks
Appointments and Grants
Teaching
- About My Courses
Students
- About My Graduate Students
- List of My Graduate Students
Mathematical Shorts
Math for Kids

Tag Archives: NWO

Modal logics in set theory, NWO grants, 2006 – 2008

Posted on April 30, 2006 by Joel David Hamkins

Reply

Modal logics in set theory, (with Benedikt Löwe), Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk (B 62-619), 2006-2008.

Share:

Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
Click to print (Opens in new window)
More

Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Posted in Grants and Awards | Tagged Amsterdam, NWO | Leave a reply

Recent Comments

Joel David Hamkins on Graduate Seminar in Philosophy of Logic, Oxford, Hilary Term 2021
Jack on Graduate Seminar in Philosophy of Logic, Oxford, Hilary Term 2021
Joel David Hamkins on Comment Board
Iago Oliveira on Comment Board
Science Advisor | Gödel's Lost Letter and P=NP on Definability and the Math Tea argument: must there be numbers we cannot describe or define? University of Warsaw, 22 January 2021

JDH on Twitter

Blogroll

A kind of library
Aleph zero categorical
Barbara Gail Montero
Benjamin Steinberg
Cantor’s Attic
Combinatorics and more
GC Math Department
Global Set Theory Talks
Gowers’s weblog
JDH on Wikipedia
Mathblogging.org
MathOverflow
Peano’s parlour
Richard Zach
Terence Tao

Mathoverflow activity

Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Are the vertical sections of the Ackermann function primitive recursive?
Thank you very much for this soft answer, which is how I shall prefer to think about it. What I find curious about the situation is that this fact shows the typical emphasis on the diagonal is somewhat misplaced. One proves the horizontal sections are cofinal in PR by induction on the PR definitions, and […]
Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Are the vertical sections of the Ackermann function primitive recursive?
And do you mean $A^3$ for my preferred version, or for the Ackermann–Péter function?
Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Are the vertical sections of the Ackermann function primitive recursive?
Great! But can you post a proof? But also, in that case, why do we talk about the diagonal, rather than just $A^3$?
Are the vertical sections of the Ackermann function primitive recursive?
The Ackermann function $A(m,n)$ is a binary function on the natural numbers defined by a certain double recursion, famous for exhibiting extremely fast-growing behavior. One finds various slightly different formulations of the Ackermann function, with slightly different initial conditions. I prefer the following version: \begin{eqnarray*} A(0,n) &=& n+1 \\ A(m,0) &=& 1, \quad\text{ except for […]
Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is this notion of finiteness closed under unions?
I think one might hope to prove that the finite union of amorphous sets is psuedo-finite, using the same model theoretic arguments that Noah mentioned.
Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Every mathematician has only a few tricks
Unfortunately, it seems not to be a good question, because it seems we won't learn much from the answers.
Comment by Joel David Hamkins on If we have a class like $L$ but allowing a set number of unbounded quantifiers, is it strict superset of $L$?
If X is transitive, the the OP's Def(X) is transitive, for the same reason as in L. Every element of X gets added, and also some subsets.
Answer by Joel David Hamkins for If we have a class like $L$ but allowing a set number of unbounded quantifiers, is it strict superset of $L$?
Every $L^{\Sigma_n}$, for $n\geq 2$ will be the same as HOD, the class of hereditarily ordinal-definable sets. This is a consequence of the Myhill-Scott theorem, which asserts that if you form the constructible universe using second-order logic (which means you allow quantifiers over subsets of $X$ only in your set-up), then you get exactly the […]

New York Logic

Title TBA
Resource Sharing Linear Logic, I
Sub-Kripkean epistemic models I
Generic logical semantics of justifications III
Generic logical semantics of justifications II
Generic logical semantics of justifications.
Cut Elimination
Functors and infinitary interpretations of structures
Recursive Reducts of PA III
Kripke completeness of strictly positive modal logics and related problems

Cantor’s Attic activity

Meta

Log in
Entries feed
Comments feed
WordPress.org

Subscribe to receive update notifications by email.

Email Address

Tags

absoluteness Arthur Apter automorphism towers buttons+switches CH chess class forcing computability countable models definability determinacy elementary embeddings equivalence relations forcing forcing axioms games GBC geology ground axiom HOD hypnagogic digraph indestructibility infinitary computability infinite chess infinite games ITTMs Jonas Reitz kids KM large cardinals maximality principle modal logic models of PA multiverse open games Oxford potentialism PSC-CUNY supercompact truth universal definition universal program Victoria Gitman W. Hugh Woodin weakly compact

Proudly powered by WordPress

Send to Email Address Your Name Your Email Address

Cancel

Post was not sent - check your email addresses!

Email check failed, please try again

Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.