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: NWO

Modal logics in set theory, NWO grants, 2006 – 2008

Posted on April 30, 2006 by Joel David Hamkins
Reply

Modal logics in set theory, (with Benedikt Löwe), Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk (B 62-619), 2006-2008.

Share:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
Posted in Grants and Awards | Tagged Amsterdam, NWO | Leave a reply

Infinitely More

Take my Philosophy and Logic of Games final exam!

Can you pass the exam for my games course?

Joel David Hamkins
8 HR AGO
3
3
Pushpast

Can the triangles push past the circles?

Joel David Hamkins
May 7
1
Bubble Monsters

Will the children make it safely through the bubble monsters?

Joel David Hamkins
Apr 25
3
Proof and the Art of Mathematics, MIT Press, 2020

Recent Comments

  • Joel David Hamkins on Comment Board
  • Xavier Noria on Comment Board
  • Thomas on Alan Turing, On computable numbers
  • Yu LI on Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?
  • GJ on All triangles are isosceles

JDH on Twitter

My Tweets

RSS Mathoverflow activity

  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Can we have nested singular sets in a Gitik model?
    I usually think of Gitik's claim being that all ℵα in his model have cofinality ω, but you are claiming the stronger property that all cardinals have cofinality ω. Do we know this holds in his model? Of course, with the ℵs we get nested singularity for free.
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Can we have a downshifting elementary embedding in stratified ZF?
    Is the assertion that j is elementary part of the theory? If so, could you clarify how you express that? (e.g. in ZFC context, there are choices to be made here, as with the Wholeness axiom)
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Can we have a downshifting elementary embedding in stratified ZF?
    Ah, I see that now. What confused me is that you also say "work in stratified ZF", which of course usually means in the bare language of set theory. You are working in ZF(j).
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Can we have a downshifting elementary embedding in stratified ZF?
    You have to specify the theory more precisely, regarding whether j is allowed into the ZF schemes. After all, we can even have full ZFC models M and isomorphisms j:M→M with $j(\alpha)
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Looking for constructive example of two complementary, dense sets, both with non-zero Lebesgue measure that add to the unit interval
    You use the word "constructive," but it isn't clear whether you intend the usual informal meaning of this word in mathematics or the more particular meaning used in constructive mathematics. In the former case, there are very easy examples, such as in Jan's answer, but in the latter case, things are more subtle. After all, […]
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Simple true Π10 statements independent of weak arithmetics
    I don't think that terminology is universal, as I have heard people refer to IΣn as a weak arithmetic, and I would find it odd to describe PA as a "strong" arithmetic. But I think this may be a US/Europe variation. Also, you are more connected with the weak part of the topic than I […]
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Simple true Π10 statements independent of weak arithmetics
    @EmilJeřábek You don't regard PRA as a weak arithmetic? I have always taken the boundary to be drawn at PA—anything weaker than PA is a weak arithmetic. (And not only me.) How does the terminology break down in your usage?
  • Comment by Joel David Hamkins on Simple true Π10 statements independent of weak arithmetics
    @C7X That's a better question. For Andres, my point is that separation over extremely weak theories is cheap and easy—why should we take this as revealing anything important or meaningful? Many incontrovertible assertions are independent over weak theories.

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