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

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