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

Tactics versus strategies—the case of chess

Does chess admit of winning or drawing tactics? Which information exactly do we need to include as part of the board position?

Joel David Hamkins
Aug 17
7
3
The tactical variation of the fundamental theorem

We prove the tactical variation of the fundamental theorem of finite games—for finite games with sufficiently rich board positions, one of the players has a winning tactic or both have drawing tactics

Joel David Hamkins
Aug 10
6
2
Tactics versus strategies in the theory of games

How do tactics differ from strategies? Does the fundamental theorem of finite games hold for tactics? Must every finite game have a winning tactic for one player or drawing tactics for both?

Joel David Hamkins
Aug 3
12
6
Proof and the Art of Mathematics, MIT Press, 2020

Buy Me a Coffee

Recent Comments

  • Did Turing ever halt? HPS Colloquium, Notre Dame, October 2025 | Joel David Hamkins on Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?
  • Lecture series on the philosophy of mathematics | Joel David Hamkins on Lectures on the Philosophy of Mathematics
  • How the continuum hypothesis might have been a fundamental axiom, Lanzhou China, July 2025 | Joel David Hamkins on How the continuum hypothesis could have been a fundamental axiom
  • Joel David Hamkins on Lectures on Set Theory, Beijing, June 2025
  • Joel David Hamkins on Lectures on Set Theory, Beijing, June 2025

JDH on Twitter

My Tweets

RSS Mathoverflow activity

  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Algorithms to count restricted injections
    Have you mixed up 𝑛 and 𝑚 in the beginning? You have 𝑓⁡(𝑎), where 𝑎 is from {1,…,𝑚}, but the domain of 𝑓 is said to be {1,…,𝑛}. If $n
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Terminology: commonly used name for an 𝜔 machine?
    Of course ultimately the computational power has nothing to do with fitting the computation into finite time, but rather just the idea of making sense of a computation with infinitely many steps. So you may be interested in the Büchi automata (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCchi_automaton), and beyond this, the infinite time Turing machines (jstor.org/stable/2586556), which extend the operation […]
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is this theory of bottomless hierarchy, consistent?
    Ah, sorry, you had the comma before → not after, namely, ∃𝑦 ∈𝐴 :𝜙, →.
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is this theory of bottomless hierarchy, consistent?
    I confess that I have long been a little confused by your manner of using colons and commas in formal expressions, since it is different from what I am used to in first-order logic or in type theory. For example, how am I to read the meaning of "∃𝑦 ∈𝐴 :𝜙 →,"? And how are we […]
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is every external downshifting elementary embedding 𝑗 with 𝑗⁡(𝑥) =𝑗⁡[𝑥], an automorphism?
    Ah, yes, of course. Thanks!
  • Answer by Joel David Hamkins for About forcing method
    Yes, part of your perspective is correct—we can make sense of forcing over any model of set theory. We can in effect internalize the concepts of forcing and express everything we need inside ZFC rather than in the metatheory. The assertion of "𝜑 is forceable", meaning that it is true in some forcing extension, is […]
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is it possible to transform a statement of unsolvabilty to an equivalent one by using a bounded universal quantifier
    OK, I have posted the argument I had in mind for the multi-variable case.
  • Answer by Joel David Hamkins for Is it possible to transform a statement of unsolvabilty to an equivalent one by using a bounded universal quantifier
    Let me answer negatively for the case where the polynomial 𝑝 is a polynomial in several variables 𝑝⁡(𝑥1,…,𝑥𝑛) over the integers. To begin, for any given program 𝑞, consider the c.e. set 𝐸𝑞 that undertakes the algorithm of checking whether 𝑞⁡(0) halts, then whether 𝑞⁡(1) halts, then whether 𝑞⁡(2) halts, and so forth, and each […]

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
  • 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
Buy Me A Coffee