Juliette Kennedy

This is the transcript of a conversation between the participants of theWoodin, W. Hugh Arctic Set Theory Workshop VI and Hugh Woodin. The conversation took place on February 24, 2023 at the Biological Research Station of the University of Helsinki in Kilpisjärvi, Finland, and was moderated by Juliette Kennedy. The transcript was created by Beau Madison Mount and is based on detailed notes taken by him during the evening. Questions were asked by David Asperó (DA), Douglas Blue (DB), Juliette Kennedy (JK), Rahman Mohammadpour (RM), Jeffrey Schatz (JS), Corey Switzer (CS), Jouko Väänänen (JV) and Bartosz Wcisło (BW). Unidentified audience members are denoted AM. * * * indicates recording unintelligible or missing.

We introduce a new inner model [Formula: see text] arising from stationary logic. We show that assuming a proper class of Woodin cardinals, or alternatively PFA, the regular uncountable cardinals of [Formula: see text] are measurable in the inner model [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] satisfies CH. Moreover, assuming a proper class of Woodin cardinals, the theory of [Formula: see text] is (set) forcing absolute. We introduce an auxiliary concept that we call Club Determinacy, which simplifies the construction of [Formula: see text] greatly but may have also independent interest. Based on Club Determinacy, we introduce the concept of aa-mouse which we use to prove CH and other properties of the inner model [Formula: see text].

The authors show. by means of a finitary version $\square_{\lambda D}^{fin}$ of the combinatorial principle $\square_\lambda^{h*}$ of [7]. the consistency of the failure, relative to the consistency of supercompact cardinals, of the following: for all regular filters D on a cardinal A. if Mi and Ni are elementarily equivalent models of a language of size $\leq \lambda$ , then the second player has a winning strategy in the Ehrenfeucht- $Fra\uml{i}ss\acute{e}$ game of length $\lambda^{+}$ on $\pi_{i} M_{i}/D$ and $\pi_{i} N_{i}/D$ . If in addition $2^{\lambda} = \labda^{+}$ and i < $\lambda$ implies | $M_{i}$ | +| $N_{i}$ | $\leq$ \lambda^{+} this means that the ultrapowers are isomorphic. This settles negatively conjecture 18 in [2]

1936 was a watershed year for computability. Debates among Gödel, Church and others over the correct analysis of the intuitive concept “human effectively computable”, an analysis at the heart of the Incompleteness Theorems, the Entscheidungsproblem, the question of what a finite computation is, and most urgently—for Gödel—the generality of the Incompleteness Theorems, were definitively set to rest with the appearance, in that year, of the Turing Machine. The question I explore here is, do the mathematical facts exhaust what is to be said about the thinking behind the “confluence of ideas in 1936”? I will argue for a cultural role in Gödel’s, and, by extension, the larger logical community’s absorption of Turing’s 1936 model. As scaffolding I employ a conceptual framework due to the critic Leo Marx of the technological sublime; I also make use of the distinction within the technological sublime due to Caroline Jones, between its iconic and performative modes—a distinction operating within the conceptual art of the 1960s, but serving the history of computability equally well.

In earlier work by the first and second authors, the equivalence of a finite square principle $\square^{\mathrm{fin}}_{\lambda,D}$ with various model-theoretic properties of structures of size $\lambda $ and regular ultrafilters was established. In this paper we investigate the principle $\square^{\mathrm{fin}}_{\lambda,D}$—and thereby the above model-theoretic properties—at a regular cardinal. By Chang’s two-cardinal theorem, $\square^{\mathrm{fin}}_{\lambda,D}$ holds at regular cardinals for all regular filters $D$ if we assume the generalized continuum hypothesis. In this paper we prove in ZFC that, for certain regular filters that we call $\mathit{doubly}^{+}$ regular, $\square^{\mathrm{fin}}_{\lambda,D}$ holds at regular cardinals, with no assumption about GCH. Thus we get new positive answers in ZFC to Open Problems 18 and 19 in Chang and Keisler’s book Model Theory.

It is by now well known that Gödel first advocated the philosophy of Leibniz and then, since 1959, that of Husserl. This raises three questions: 1. How is this turn to Husserl to be interpreted? Is it a dismissal of the Leibnizian philosophy, or a different way to achieve similar goals? 2. Why did Gödel turn specifically to the later Husserl's transcendental idealism? 3. Is there any detectable influence from Husserl on Gödel's writings? Regarding the first question, Wang [96, p. 165] reports that Gödel ‘[saw] in Husserl's work a method of refining and consolidating Leibniz' monadology’. But what does this mean? In what for Gödel relevant sense is Husserl's work a refinement and consolidation of Leibniz' monadology?The second question is particularly pressing, given that Gödel was, by his own admission, a realist in mathematics since 1925. Wouldn't the uncompromising realism of the early Husserl's Logical investigations have been a more obvious choice for a Platonist like Gödel? The third question can only be approached when an answer to the second has been given, and we want to suggest that the answer to the first question follows from the answer to the second. We begin, therefore, with a closer look at the actual turn towards phenomenology. Some 30 years before his serious study of Husserl began, Gödel was well aware of the existence of phenomenology. Apart from its likely appearance in the philosophy courses that Gödel took, it reached him from various directions.

We ask, when is a property of a model a logical property? According to the so-called Tarski–Sher criterion this is the case when the property is preserved by isomorphisms. We relate this to model-theoretic characteristics of abstract logics in which the model class is definable. This results in a graded concept of logicality in the terminology of Sagi [46]. We investigate which characteristics of logics, such as variants of the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem, Completeness theorem, and absoluteness, are relevant from the logicality point of view, continuing earlier work by Bonnay, Feferman, and Sagi. We suggest that a logic is the more logical the closer it is to first order logic. We also offer a refinement of the result of McGee that logical properties of models can be expressed in $L_{\infty \infty }$ if the expression is allowed to depend on the cardinality of the model, based on replacing $L_{\infty \infty }$ by a “tamer” logic.

This volume features more than 20 essays that explore the work of one of the most important contemporary philosophers of mathematics. It will help readers to better appreciate this significant and prolific philosopher. Within philosophy of mathematics, Penelope Maddy initially advocated realism. She then went on to advance naturalism. Both of her positions became very influential in the field, along with her other work in the philosophy of logic. The contributors comment on and otherwise engage with Maddy’s work. They also weigh in on the state of set theory and its philosophy, the philosophy and history of logic, naturalism, skepticism, and the myriad other areas to which Maddy left her mark. Overall, coverage traces her influence on these various ideas over the years. It will also help readers to better understand how philosophers working at the forefront of these areas see these concepts today. These essays will be essential reading for the wide group of philosophers working in these different areas as well as graduate students studying philosophy of mathematics and logic and the other related issues to which Maddy has contributed. The volume will also appeal to logicians and set theorists in general, as well as to philosophers working in analytic philosophy more widely, as well as to those working in the history of philosophy.

This Element takes a deep dive into Gödel's 1931 paper giving the first presentation of the Incompleteness Theorems, opening up completely passages in it that might possibly puzzle the student, such as the mysterious footnote 48a. It considers the main ingredients of Gödel's proof: arithmetization, strong representability, and the Fixed Point Theorem in a layered fashion, returning to their various aspects: semantic, syntactic, computational, philosophical and mathematical, as the topic arises. It samples some of the most important proofs of the Incompleteness Theorems, e.g. due to Kuratowski, Smullyan and Robinson, as well as newer proofs, also of other independent statements, due to H. Friedman, Weiermann and Paris-Harrington. It examines the question whether the incompleteness of e.g. Peano Arithmetic gives immediately the undecidability of the Entscheidungsproblem, as Kripke has recently argued. It considers set-theoretical incompleteness, and finally considers some of the philosophical consequences considered in the literature.

Is mathematics 'entangled' with its various formalisations? Or are the central concepts of mathematics largely insensitive to formalisation, or 'formalism free'? What is the semantic point of view and how is it implemented in foundational practice? Does a given semantic framework always have an implicit syntax? Inspired by what she calls the 'natural language moves' of Gödel and Tarski, Juliette Kennedy considers what roles the concepts of 'entanglement' and 'formalism freeness' play in a range of logical settings, from computability and set theory to model theory and second order logic, to logicality, developing an entirely original philosophy of mathematics along the way. The treatment is historically, logically and set-theoretically rich, and topics such as naturalism and foundations receive their due, but now with a new twist.

I hold up my hand and I count five fingers. I take it on faith that the mapping from fingers onto numbers is recursive in the sense of the mathematician’s definition of the informal concept, “human calculability following a fixed routine.” I cannot prove the mapping is recursive—there is nothing to prove! Of course, mathematicians can prove many theorems about recursiveness, moving forward, so to speak, once the definition of the concept “recursive” has been isolated. Moving backwards is more difficult and this is as it should be: for how can one possibly hope to prove that a mathematical definition captures an informal concept? This paper is about just that one word, capture, or more precisely the rela- tion “x captures y,” and the question, if y is taken to be computability, definabil- ity or provability, does there exist an adequate and unique choice of x?