Skip to primary content
Skip to secondary content

Joel David Hamkins

mathematics and philosophy of the infinite

Joel David Hamkins

Main menu

  • Home
    • About
    • My Curriculum Vita
    • Contact
    • Comment Board
  • Publications
    • Publication list
    • Recent publications
    • Publications by topic
      • Automorphism towers
      • Infinitary computability
      • Infinitary utilitarianism
      • Large cardinals
    • My Research Collaborators
  • Talks
    • Talks
    • Recent and Upcoming Talks
    • Videos
  • Appointments and Grants
    • About Me
    • My Academic Appointments
    • Grants and Awards
  • Teaching
    • About My Courses
  • Students
    • About My Graduate Students
    • List of My Graduate Students
  • Mathematical Shorts
  • Math for Kids

Tag Archives: Columbia University

A potentialist conception of ultrafinitism, Columbia University, April 2025

Posted on April 6, 2025 by Joel David Hamkins
4


This will be a talk for the conference on Ultrafinitism: Physics, Mathematics, and Philosophy at Columbia University in New York, April 11-13, 2025.

Abstract. I shall argue in various respects that ultrafinitism is fruitfully understood from a potentialist perspective, an approach to the topic that enables certain formal treatments of ultrafinitist ideas, which otherwise often struggle to find satisfactory formalization.

Slides – Ultrafinitism – Columbia 2025 – HamkinsDownload

Handout format, without pauses: Slides – Ultrafinitism – Columbia 2025 – Hamkins – handout

Share:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • More
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
Posted in Talks | Tagged Columbia University, potentialism, ultrafinitism | 4 Replies

Infinitely More

Proof and the Art of Mathematics, MIT Press, 2020

Buy Me a Coffee

Recent Comments

  • Nicholas Swenson on Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?
  • Joel David Hamkins on Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?
  • Nicholas Swenson on Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?
  • Joel David Hamkins on Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?
  • Owen Venes on What is the game of recursive chess?

JDH on Twitter

My Tweets

RSS Mathoverflow activity

  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on An infinite game played on $\{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}$ in which the players must avoid creating an algebraic dependency
    Maybe we can implement the diagonalization by realizing that every instance of algebraic dependency can be witnessed by a sufficiently Lipschitz polynomial, where knowing $n$ bits each of the prior variables is enough to diagonalize against the root in the next bit of the given number. Is this true?
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on An infinite game played on $\{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}$ in which the players must avoid creating an algebraic dependency
    Your strategy-stealing idea shows at least that Bob can have no winning strategy. So either both have drawing strategies or Alice has a winning strategy. Frankly, I see no particular advantage in going first, and so I expect both will have drawing strategies. (The randomness issue in Q2 is an irrelevant side issue, since that […]
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on An infinite game played on $\{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}$ in which the players must avoid creating an algebraic dependency
    Ah, you are right. Yes, the diagonalizing idea is what I had in mind with my first comment. But I'm not sure how to implement it, since at a given stage, you know $n$ digits for all the other numbers, but this might not be enough for you to kill that particular polynomial, since you […]
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on An infinite game played on $\{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}$ in which the players must avoid creating an algebraic dependency
    @FanxinWu And by Borel determinacy we know that either one player has a winning strategy or both have drawing strategies, so that would mean that both players have drawing strategies. (I suggest you post as an answer, since this answers both questions.)
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on An infinite game played on $\{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}$ in which the players must avoid creating an algebraic dependency
    Perhaps we should aim to prove that both players will be able to make their numbers algebraically independent of all the other numbers.
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Type defined by quantifying another type
    @AlexKruckman I think it would be better for you to post an answer than for this question to be closed. I find the fact interesting, and I think many other people here on MO would as well, particularly the remark about "sufficiently saturated."
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Examples of use of ordinal computability / ordinals in classical recursion theory
    Isn't (2) due to Harrison? At least those orders are called Harrison orders.
  • Answer by Joel David Hamkins for Examples of use of ordinal computability / ordinals in classical recursion theory
    I'm not sure if this is the kind of thing you are seeking, but here is a use of cardinals, rather than specifically ordinals. Namely, let us prove the classical fact that there are incomparable Turing degrees. If not, then the Turing degrees are linearly ordered. But since every degree has only countably many degrees […]

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Subscribe to receive update notifications by email.

Tags

  • absoluteness
  • bi-interpretation
  • buttons+switches
  • CH
  • chess
  • computability
  • continuum hypothesis
  • countable models
  • definability
  • determinacy
  • elementary embeddings
  • forcing
  • forcing axioms
  • games
  • GBC
  • generic multiverse
  • geology
  • HOD
  • indestructibility
  • infinitary computability
  • infinite chess
  • infinite games
  • ITTMs
  • kids
  • KM
  • large cardinals
  • Leibnizian models
  • maximality principle
  • modal logic
  • models of PA
  • multiverse
  • Notre Dame
  • open games
  • Oxford
  • philosophy of mathematics
  • pluralism
  • pointwise definable
  • potentialism
  • PSC-CUNY
  • supercompact
  • truth
  • universal algorithm
  • universal definition
  • universal program
  • Victoria Gitman
Proudly powered by WordPress