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

Recent Comments

  • Joel David Hamkins on Comment Board
  • Mohandeep Singh on Comment Board
  • David Roberts on Skolem’s paradox and the countable transitive submodel theorem, Leeds Set Theory Seminar, May 2025
  • David Roberts on A potentialist conception of ultrafinitism, Columbia University, April 2025
  • Joel David Hamkins on A potentialist conception of ultrafinitism, Columbia University, April 2025

JDH on Twitter

My Tweets

RSS Mathoverflow activity

  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is V[r0,…,rk,…] a proper extension
    If someone wants to push the idea through, please feel free to post an answer.
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is V[r0,…,rk,…] a proper extension
    Yes, in fact I was thinking about exactly that case. One needs to verify that the composition of those forcing notion is still improper. Is this clear?
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is V[r0,…,rk,…] a proper extension
    This would answer your question negatively, if we had an improper extension that was stationary preserving and generated by a real (with a Cohen real present). Perhaps we can just do some improper forcing stat-preserving forcing, followed by almost disjoint coding to get the extension generated by a real?
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is V[r0,…,rk,…] a proper extension
    If you have any Cohen real at all and W is generated by some real r, not necessary Cohen, then you can achieve the situation of your third bullet point, by splitting the Cohen real into countably many, and changing one bit in each so as to code the given real r into the sequence.
  • Answer by Joel David Hamkins for How might fundamental mathematics differ for entities with intuitive comprehension of the continuum?
    The answer to your question is the subject of descriptive set theory, which is all about trying to understand the hierarchy of logical complexity that arises in a context where the real numbers are given as basic objects. This is far beyond the arithmetic hierarchy, studying the projective hierarchy, and we analyze the complexity of […]
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on How does a global well order provide a selector?
    It is definable from
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on A form of reverse mathematics that works with hereditarily finite sets instead of numbers
    Ah, sorry, I don't have a reference. But I think of this as a trivial step of applying the bi-interpretation.
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on How might fundamental mathematics differ for entities with intuitive comprehension of the continuum?
    I was writing an answer to this question, all about descriptive set theory, but the question was closed.

Meta

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

Subscribe to receive update notifications by email.

Tags

  • absoluteness
  • buttons+switches
  • CH
  • chess
  • computability
  • continuum hypothesis
  • countable models
  • definability
  • determinacy
  • elementary embeddings
  • forcing
  • forcing axioms
  • games
  • GBC
  • generic multiverse
  • geology
  • ground axiom
  • HOD
  • hypnagogic digraph
  • indestructibility
  • infinitary computability
  • infinite chess
  • infinite games
  • ITTMs
  • kids
  • KM
  • large cardinals
  • Leibnizian models
  • maximality principle
  • modal logic
  • models of PA
  • multiverse
  • 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