Joel David Hamkins

An introduction to the philosophy of mathematics grounded in mathematics and motivated by mathematical inquiry and practice. In this book, Joel David Hamkins offers an introduction to the philosophy of mathematics that is grounded in mathematics and motivated by mathematical inquiry and practice. He treats philosophical issues as they arise organically in mathematics, discussing such topics as platonism, realism, logicism, structuralism, formalism, infinity, and intuitionism in mathematical contexts. He organizes the book by mathematical themes--numbers, rigor, geometry, proof, computability, incompleteness, and set theory--that give rise again and again to philosophical considerations.

The generic Vopěnka principle, we prove, is relatively consistent with the ordinals being non-Mahlo. Similarly, the generic Vopěnka scheme is relatively consistent with the ordinals being definably non-Mahlo. Indeed, the generic Vopěnka scheme is relatively consistent with the existence of a \-definable class containing no regular cardinals. In such a model, there can be no \-reflecting cardinals and hence also no remarkable cardinals. This latter fact answers negatively a question of Bagaria, Gitman and Schindler.

After reviewing various natural bi-interpretations in urelement set theory, including second-order set theories with urelements, we explore the strength of second-order reflection in these contexts. Ultimately, we prove, second-order reflection with the abundant atom axiom is bi-interpretable and hence also equiconsistent with the existence of a supercompact cardinal. The proof relies on a reflection characterization of supercompactness, namely, a cardinal κ is supercompact if and only if every Π11 sentence true in a structure M (of any size) containing κ in a language of size less than κ is also true in a substructure m≺M of size less than κ with m∩κ∈κ.

An introduction to writing proofs, presented through compelling mathematical statements with interesting elementary proofs. This book offers an introduction to the art and craft of proof-writing. The author, a leading research mathematician, presents a series of engaging and compelling mathematical statements with interesting elementary proofs. These proofs capture a wide range of topics, including number theory, combinatorics, graph theory, the theory of games, geometry, infinity, order theory, and real analysis. The goal is to show students and aspiring mathematicians how to write proofs with elegance and precision.

We show that the analogues of the embedding theorems of [3], proved for the countable models of set theory, do not hold when extended to the uncountable realm of ω1‐like models of set theory. Specifically, under the ⋄ hypothesis and suitable consistency assumptions, we show that there is a family of many ω1‐like models of, all with the same ordinals, that are pairwise incomparable under embeddability; there can be a transitive ω1‐like model of that does not embed into its own constructible universe; and there can be an ω1‐like model of whose structure of hereditarily finite sets is not universal for the ω1‐like models of set theory.

I consider the natural infinitary variations of the games Wordle and Mastermind, as well as their game‐theoretic variations Absurdle and Madstermind, considering these games with infinitely long words and infinite color sequences and allowing transfinite game play. For each game, a secret codeword is hidden, which the codebreaker attempts to discover by making a series of guesses and receiving feedback as to their accuracy. In Wordle with words of any size from a finite alphabet of n letters, including infinite words or even uncountable words, the codebreaker can nevertheless always win in n steps. Meanwhile, the mastermind number, defined as the smallest winning set of guesses in infinite Mastermind for sequences of length ω over a countable set of colors without duplication, is uncountable, but the exact value turns out to be independent of, for it is provably equal to the eventually different number, which is the same as the covering number of the meager ideal. I thus place all the various mastermind numbers, defined for the natural variations of the game, into the hierarchy of cardinal characteristics of the continuum.

According to the math tea argument, there must be real numbers that we cannot describe or define, because there are uncountably many real numbers, but only countably many definitions. And yet, the existence of pointwise-definable models of set theory, in which every individual is definable without parameters, challenges this conclusion. In this article, I introduce a flexible new method for constructing pointwise-definable models of arithmetic and set theory, showing furthermore that every countable model of Zermelo-Fraenkel ZF set theory and of Peano arithmetic PA has a pointwise-definable end extension. In the arithmetic case, I use the universal algorithm and its Σ n generalizations to build a progressively elementary tower making any desired individual a n definable at each stage n, while preserving these definitions through to the limit model, which can thus be arranged to be pointwise definable. A similar method works in set theory, and one can moreover achieve V = L in the extension or indeed any other suitable theory holding in an inner model of the original model, thereby fulfilling the resurrection phenomenon. For example, every countable model of ZF with an inner model with a measurable cardinal has an end extension to a pointwise-definable model of ZFC + V = L[μ].

Applying the seed concept to Prikry tree forcing $\mathbb{P}_\mu$, I investigate how well $\mathbb{P}_\mu$ preserves the maximality property of ordinary Prikry forcing and prove that $\mathbb{P}_\mu$ Prikry sequences are maximal exactly when $\mu$ admits no non-canonical seeds via a finite iteration. In particular, I conclude that if $\mu$ is a strongly normal supercompactness measure, then $\mathbb{P}_\mu$ Prikry sequences are maximal, thereby proving, for a large class of measures, a conjecture of W. Hugh Woodin's.

In this paper, following an idea of Christophe Chalons, I propose a new kind of forcing axiom, the Maximality Principle, which asserts that any sentence φ holding in some forcing extension $V\P$ and all subsequent extensions V\P*\Qdot holds already in V. It follows, in fact, that such sentences must also hold in all forcing extensions of V. In modal terms, therefore, the Maximality Principle is expressed by the scheme $\implies\necessaryφ$, and is equivalent to the modal theory S5. In this article, I prove that the Maximality Principle is relatively consistent with \ZFC. A boldface version of the Maximality Principle, obtained by allowing real parameters to appear in φ, is equiconsistent with the scheme asserting that $Vδ\elesub V$ for an inaccessible cardinal δ, which in turn is equiconsistent with the scheme asserting that $\ORD$ is Mahlo. The strongest principle along these lines is $\necessary\MPtilde$, which asserts that $\MPtilde$ holds in V and all forcing extensions. From this, it follows that 0# exists, that x# exists for every set x, that projective truth is invariant by forcing, that Woodin cardinals are consistent and much more. Many open questions remain.