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: naturalist account of forcing

A multiverse perspective in mathematics and set theory: does every mathematical statement have a definite truth value? Shanghai, June 2013

Posted on May 18, 2013 by Joel David Hamkins
Reply

Fudan blueThis will be a talk for specialists in philosophy, mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics, given as part of the workshop Metamathematics and Metaphysics, June 15, 2013, sponsored by the group in Mathematical Logic at Fudan University.

Abstract:  Much of the debate on pluralism in the philosophy of set theory turns on the question of whether every mathematical and set-theoretic assertion has a definite truth value. A traditional Platonist view in set theory, which I call the universe view, holds that there is an absolute background concept of set and a corresponding absolute background set-theoretic universe in which every set-theoretic assertion has a final, definitive truth value. I shall try to tease apart two often-blurred aspects of this perspective, namely, to separate the claim that the set-theoretic universe has a real mathematical existence from the claim that it is unique. A competing view, the multiverse view, accepts the former claim and rejects the latter, by holding that there are many distinct concepts of set, each instantiated in a corresponding set-theoretic universe, and a corresponding pluralism of set-theoretic truths. After framing the dispute, I shall argue that the multiverse position explains our experience with the enormous diversity of set-theoretic possibility, a phenomenon that is one of the central set-theoretic discoveries of the past fifty years and one which challenges the universe view. In particular, I shall argue that the continuum hypothesis is settled on the multiverse view by our extensive knowledge about how it behaves in the multiverse, and as a result it can no longer be settled in the manner formerly hoped for.

Fudan University seal

 

Slides

 

 

 

 

The talk will engage with ideas from some of my recent papers on the topic:

  • The set-theoretic multiverse
  • The multiverse perspective on the axiom of constructibility
  • Is the dream solution of the continuum hypothesis possible to achieve?

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 CH, forcing, multiverse, naturalist account of forcing, pluralism, Shanghai | Leave a reply

Well-founded Boolean ultrapowers as large cardinal embeddings

Posted on June 26, 2012 by Joel David Hamkins
2

[bibtex key=HamkinsSeabold:BooleanUltrapowers]

Boolean ultrapowers extend the classical ultrapower construction to work with ultrafilters on any complete Boolean algebra, rather than only on a power set algebra. When they are well-founded, the associated Boolean ultrapower embeddings exhibit a large cardinal nature, and the Boolean ultrapower construction thereby unifies two central themes of set theory—forcing and large cardinals—by revealing them to be two facets of a single underlying construction, the Boolean ultrapower.

The topic of this article was the focus of my tutorial lecture series at the Young Set Theorists Workshop at the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics in Königswinter near Bonn, Germany, March 21-25, 2011.

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 Publications | Tagged Boolean ultrapower, Daniel Seabold, elementary embeddings, forcing, large cardinals, multiverse, naturalist account of forcing | 2 Replies

Infinitely More

Proof and the Art of Mathematics, MIT Press, 2020

Recent Comments

  • 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
  • David Roberts on A potentialist conception of ultrafinitism, Columbia University, April 2025
  • David Roberts 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 existence of one step downshifting embeddings consistent with Stratified ZF?
    But also, this notion of embedding is very weak. Indeed, ZFC proves that there are embeddings j:V→V that are definable and not the identity. Being definable, they can appear in the replacement and separation axioms. I prove this in my paper: worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219061313500062. But those j will not have j(α)+1=α, and indeed, they don't even […]
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is existence of one step downshifting embeddings consistent with Stratified ZF?
    The injectivity requirement on j follows from the embedding part by extensionality, since if x≠y, then there is some z in one of them and not the other, and so j(z) will distinguish j(x) and j(y).
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on The club filter in definable preorders
    Well, that isn't really correct, since ω1+1 embeds into those ωn. But there is a version of the question, I suppose, that drops that hypothesis, and this is still interesting. Under AD, Jackson has investigated which cardinals are measurable, but I am unsure whether we know the cofinalities of the cardinals. An affirmative answer to […]
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on The club filter in definable preorders
    Under AD, we know ω1 and ω2 are measurable, via the club filter, and ωn is not measurable $3\leq n
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is there a general way to translate well-founded and non-well founded models of theories?
    It is the same with Boffa, which has many automorphisms, although one needs parameters to define the automorphisms.
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is there a general way to translate well-founded and non-well founded models of theories?
    The whole universe. For example, if we add the axiom that there are exactly two Quine atoms, and everything else is generated from them in a well-founded hierarchy, then swapping them is a definable automorphism of the universe.
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is there a general way to translate well-founded and non-well founded models of theories?
    That won't be true, since ZFC-Reg+exists ill-fdd has extensions with definable automorphisms, and these can never be bi-interpretable with ZFC, which is definably rigid.
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Is there a general way to translate well-founded and non-well founded models of theories?
    Yes, that is what I meant. For example, Aczel's anti-foundational theory (with choice) is bi-interpretable with ZFC.

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