Showing 1–50 of 107 results for author: Hamkins, J D

How the continuum hypothesis could have been a fundamental axiom

Authors: Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: I describe a simple historical thought experiment showing how we might have come to view the continuum hypothesis as a fundamental axiom, one necessary for mathematics, indispensable even for calculus. I describe a simple historical thought experiment showing how we might have come to view the continuum hypothesis as a fundamental axiom, one necessary for mathematics, indispensable even for calculus. △ Less

Submitted 2 July, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

Comments: 17 pages. Commentary can be made on the author's blog at https://jdh.hamkins.org/how-ch-could-have-been-fundamental

Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Theodor Nenu

Abstract: We discuss the accuracy of the attribution commonly given to Turing's 1936 paper "On computable numbers..." for the computable undecidability of the halting problem, coming eventually to a nuanced conclusion. We discuss the accuracy of the attribution commonly given to Turing's 1936 paper "On computable numbers..." for the computable undecidability of the halting problem, coming eventually to a nuanced conclusion. △ Less

Submitted 30 June, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

Comments: 18 pages. Commentary may be made on the first author's blog at https://jdh.hamkins.org/turing-halting-problem

Pseudo-countable models

Authors: Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: Every mathematical structure has an elementary extension to a pseudo-countable structure, one that is seen as countable inside a suitable class model of set theory, even though it may actually be uncountable. This observation, proved easily with the Boolean ultrapower theorem, enables a sweeping generalization of results concerning countable models to a rich realm of uncountable models. The Barwis… ▽ More Every mathematical structure has an elementary extension to a pseudo-countable structure, one that is seen as countable inside a suitable class model of set theory, even though it may actually be uncountable. This observation, proved easily with the Boolean ultrapower theorem, enables a sweeping generalization of results concerning countable models to a rich realm of uncountable models. The Barwise extension theorem, for example, holds amongst the pseudo-countable models -- every pseudo-countable model of ZF admits an end extension to a model of ZFC+V=L. Indeed, the class of pseudo-countable models is a rich multiverse of set-theoretic worlds, containing elementary extensions of any given model of set theory and closed under forcing extensions and interpreted models, while simultaneously fulfilling the Barwise extension theorem, the Keisler-Morley theorem, the resurrection theorem, and the universal finite sequence theorem, among others. △ Less

Submitted 10 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

Comments: 11 pages. Commentary can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/pseudo-countable-models

Every countable model of arithmetic or set theory has a pointwise-definable end extension

Authors: Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: 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 constr… ▽ More 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 $\text{ZFC}+V=L[μ]$. △ Less

Submitted 6 April, 2024; v1 submitted 26 September, 2022; originally announced September 2022.

Comments: 17 pages. Comments can be made on the author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/pointwise-definable-end-extensions. Revision includes minor changes to improve exposition and historical matters

Fregean abstraction in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory: a deflationary account

Authors: Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: The standard treatment of sets and definable classes in first-order Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory accords in many respects with the Fregean foundational framework, such as the distinction between objects and concepts. Nevertheless, in set theory we may define an explicit association of definable classes with set objects $F\mapsto\varepsilon F$ in such a way, I shall prove, to realize Frege's Basic L… ▽ More The standard treatment of sets and definable classes in first-order Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory accords in many respects with the Fregean foundational framework, such as the distinction between objects and concepts. Nevertheless, in set theory we may define an explicit association of definable classes with set objects $F\mapsto\varepsilon F$ in such a way, I shall prove, to realize Frege's Basic Law V as a ZF theorem scheme, Russell notwithstanding. A similar analysis applies to the Cantor-Hume principle and to Fregean abstraction generally. Because these extension and abstraction operators are definable, they provide a deflationary account of Fregean abstraction, one expressible in and reducible to set theory -- every assertion in the language of set theory allowing the extension and abstraction operators $\varepsilon F$, $\# G$, $αH$ is equivalent to an assertion not using them. The analysis thus sidesteps Russell's argument, which is revealed not as a refutation of Basic Law~V as such, but rather as a version of Tarski's theorem on the nondefinability of truth, showing that the proto-truth-predicate "$x$ falls under the concept of which $y$ is the extension" is not expressible. △ Less

Submitted 16 September, 2022; originally announced September 2022.

Comments: 22 pages. Commentary can be made on the author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/fregean-abstraction-deflationary-account

Nonlinearity and illfoundedness in the hierarchy of large cardinal consistency strength

Authors: Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: Many set theorists point to the linearity phenomenon in the hierarchy of consistency strength, by which natural theories tend to be linearly ordered and indeed well ordered by consistency strength. Why should it be linear? In this paper I present counterexamples, natural instances of nonlinearity and illfoundedness in the hierarchy of large cardinal consistency strength, as natural or as nearly na… ▽ More Many set theorists point to the linearity phenomenon in the hierarchy of consistency strength, by which natural theories tend to be linearly ordered and indeed well ordered by consistency strength. Why should it be linear? In this paper I present counterexamples, natural instances of nonlinearity and illfoundedness in the hierarchy of large cardinal consistency strength, as natural or as nearly natural as I can make them. I present diverse cautious enumerations of ZFC and large cardinal set theories, which exhibit incomparability and illfoundedness in consistency strength, and yet, I argue, are natural. I consider the philosophical role played by "natural" in the linearity phenomenon, arguing ultimately that we should abandon empty naturality talk and aim instead to make precise the mathematical and logical features we had found desirable. △ Less

Submitted 25 August, 2022; v1 submitted 15 August, 2022; originally announced August 2022.

Comments: 38 pages. Commentary can be made about this article on the author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/nonlinearity-in-the-hierarchy-of-consistency-strength. v2 includes several relevant references to work of James Walsh

Reflection in second-order set theory with abundant urelements bi-interprets a supercompact cardinal

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Bokai Yao

Abstract: 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 reflect… ▽ More 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 $Π^1_1$ 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 $m\prec M$ of size less than $κ$ with $m\capκ\inκ$. △ Less

Submitted 5 December, 2022; v1 submitted 20 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Comments: 36 pages, 6 figures. Commentary can be made on the first author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/second-order-reflection-with-abundant-urelements. V2 contains several refinements, improvements to exposition, and additional citations

MSC Class: 03E30; 03E55; 03E65

Infinite Wordle and the Mastermind numbers

Authors: Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: 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 fee… ▽ More 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 ZFC, for it is provably equal to the eventually different number $\frak{d}({\neq^*})$, which is the same as the covering number of the meager ideal $\text{cov}(\mathcal{M})$. 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. △ Less

Submitted 2 September, 2023; v1 submitted 13 March, 2022; originally announced March 2022.

Comments: 22 pages, 5 figures. Comments can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/infinite-wordle-mastermind. v2 has minor updates and corrections. v3 makes a minor correction to theorem 11 statement 2 and a few other minor ambiguities

Infinite Hex is a draw

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Davide Leonessi

Abstract: We introduce the game of infinite Hex, extending the familiar finite game to natural play on the infinite hexagonal lattice. Whereas the finite game is a win for the first player, we prove in contrast that infinite Hex is a draw -- both players have drawing strategies. Meanwhile, the transfinite game-value phenomenon, now abundantly exhibited in infinite chess and infinite draughts, regrettably do… ▽ More We introduce the game of infinite Hex, extending the familiar finite game to natural play on the infinite hexagonal lattice. Whereas the finite game is a win for the first player, we prove in contrast that infinite Hex is a draw -- both players have drawing strategies. Meanwhile, the transfinite game-value phenomenon, now abundantly exhibited in infinite chess and infinite draughts, regrettably does not arise in infinite Hex; only finite game values occur. Indeed, every game-valued position in infinite Hex is intrinsically local, meaning that winning play depends only on a fixed finite region of the board. This latter fact is proved under very general hypotheses, establishing the conclusion for all simple stone-placing games. △ Less

Submitted 30 July, 2023; v1 submitted 17 January, 2022; originally announced January 2022.

Comments: 28 pages, 36 figures. Commentary and inquires can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/infinite-hex-is-a-draw

MSC Class: 91A44; 03E60

Transfinite game values in infinite draughts

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Davide Leonessi

Abstract: Infinite draughts, or checkers, is played just like the finite game, but on an infinite checkerboard extending without bound in all four directions. We prove that every countable ordinal arises as the game value of a position in infinite draughts. Thus, there are positions from which Red has a winning strategy enabling her to win always in finitely many moves, but the length of play can be complet… ▽ More Infinite draughts, or checkers, is played just like the finite game, but on an infinite checkerboard extending without bound in all four directions. We prove that every countable ordinal arises as the game value of a position in infinite draughts. Thus, there are positions from which Red has a winning strategy enabling her to win always in finitely many moves, but the length of play can be completely controlled by Black in a manner as though counting down from a given countable ordinal. △ Less

Submitted 3 November, 2021; originally announced November 2021.

Comments: 15 pages, 12 figures. Adapted from chapter 3 of the second author's MSc dissertation arXiv:2111.01630, for which he earned a distinction at the University of Oxford in September 2021. Commentary can be made about this article on the first author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/transfinite-game-values-in-infinite-draughts

MSC Class: 03E60; 91Axx

Is the twin prime conjecture independent of Peano Arithmetic?

Authors: Alessandro Berarducci, Antongiulio Fornasiero, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: We show that there is an arithmetical formula F such that ZF proves that F is independent of PA and yet, unlike other arithmetical independent statements, the truth value of F cannot at present be established in ZF or in any other trusted metatheory. In fact we can choose an example of such a formula F such that ZF proves that F is equivalent to the twin prime conjecture. We show that there is an arithmetical formula F such that ZF proves that F is independent of PA and yet, unlike other arithmetical independent statements, the truth value of F cannot at present be established in ZF or in any other trusted metatheory. In fact we can choose an example of such a formula F such that ZF proves that F is equivalent to the twin prime conjecture. △ Less

Submitted 2 November, 2021; v1 submitted 16 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

Comments: 4 pages. Added Hamkins as coauthor and a sharper version of the main result (Theorem 1)

MSC Class: 03B10

Modal model theory

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Wojciech Aleksander Wołoszyn

Abstract: We introduce the subject of modal model theory, where one studies a mathematical structure within a class of similar structures under an extension concept that gives rise to mathematically natural notions of possibility and necessity. A statement $\varphi$ is possible in a structure (written $\Diamond\varphi$) if $\varphi$ is true in some extension of that structure, and $\varphi$ is necessary (wr… ▽ More We introduce the subject of modal model theory, where one studies a mathematical structure within a class of similar structures under an extension concept that gives rise to mathematically natural notions of possibility and necessity. A statement $\varphi$ is possible in a structure (written $\Diamond\varphi$) if $\varphi$ is true in some extension of that structure, and $\varphi$ is necessary (written $\Box\varphi$) if it is true in all extensions of the structure. A principal case for us will be the class Mod(T) of all models of a given theory T---all graphs, all groups, all fields, or what have you---considered under the substructure relation. In this article, we aim to develop the resulting modal model theory. The class of all graphs is a particularly insightful case illustrating the remarkable power of the modal vocabulary, for the modal language of graph theory can express connectedness, $k$-colorability, finiteness, countability, size continuum, size $\aleph_1$, $\aleph_2$, $\aleph_ω$, $\beth_ω$, first $\beth$-fixed point, first $\beth$-hyper-fixed-point and much more. A graph obeys the maximality principle $\Diamond\Box\varphi(a)\to\varphi(a)$ with parameters if and only if it satisfies the theory of the countable random graph, and it satisfies the maximality principle for sentences if and only if it is universal for finite graphs. △ Less

Submitted 20 September, 2020; originally announced September 2020.

Comments: 36 pages. Questions and commentary can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/modal-model-theory

Categorical large cardinals and the tension between categoricity and set-theoretic reflection

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Hans Robin Solberg

Abstract: Inspired by Zermelo's quasi-categoricity result characterizing the models of second-order Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory $\text{ZFC}_2$, we investigate when those models are fully categorical, characterized by the addition to $\text{ZFC}_2$ either of a first-order sentence, a first-order theory, a second-order sentence or a second-order theory. Thus we mount an analysis of the categorical large cardi… ▽ More Inspired by Zermelo's quasi-categoricity result characterizing the models of second-order Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory $\text{ZFC}_2$, we investigate when those models are fully categorical, characterized by the addition to $\text{ZFC}_2$ either of a first-order sentence, a first-order theory, a second-order sentence or a second-order theory. Thus we mount an analysis of the categorical large cardinals. This mathematical analysis leads naturally to philosophical issues concerning structuralism and realism, including especially the tension between categoricity and reflection. Ultimately we identify grounds for the preference of noncategoricity in one's foundations. △ Less

Submitted 24 March, 2022; v1 submitted 15 September, 2020; originally announced September 2020.

Comments: 34 pages. Revised version includes results on the supremum of the categorical cardinals and other topics, and more extended philosophical discussion. Commentary about this article can be made on the first author's web page at http://jdh.hamkins.org/categorical-large-cardinals

Choiceless large cardinals and set-theoretic potentialism

Authors: Raffaella Cutolo, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: We define a potentialist system of ZF-structures, that is, a collection of possible worlds in the language of ZF connected by a binary accessibility relation, achieving a potentialist account of the full background set-theoretic universe $V$. The definition involves Berkeley cardinals, the strongest known large cardinal axioms, inconsistent with the Axiom of Choice. In fact, as background theory w… ▽ More We define a potentialist system of ZF-structures, that is, a collection of possible worlds in the language of ZF connected by a binary accessibility relation, achieving a potentialist account of the full background set-theoretic universe $V$. The definition involves Berkeley cardinals, the strongest known large cardinal axioms, inconsistent with the Axiom of Choice. In fact, as background theory we assume just ZF. It turns out that the propositional modal assertions which are valid at every world of our system are exactly those in the modal theory S4.2. Moreover, we characterize the worlds satisfying the potentialist maximality principle, and thus the modal theory S5, both for assertions in the language of ZF and for assertions in the full potentialist language. △ Less

Submitted 2 July, 2020; originally announced July 2020.

Comments: 10 pages. Inquires and commentary can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/choiceless-large-cardinals-and-set-theoretic-potentialism . arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1708.01644

Forcing as a computational process

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Russell Miller, Kameryn J. Williams

Abstract: We investigate how set-theoretic forcing can be seen as a computational process on the models of set theory. Given an oracle for information about a model of set theory $\langle M,\in^M\rangle$, we explain senses in which one may compute $M$-generic filters $G\subseteq\mathbb{P}\in M$ and the corresponding forcing extensions $M[G]$. Specifically, from the atomic diagram one may compute $G$, from t… ▽ More We investigate how set-theoretic forcing can be seen as a computational process on the models of set theory. Given an oracle for information about a model of set theory $\langle M,\in^M\rangle$, we explain senses in which one may compute $M$-generic filters $G\subseteq\mathbb{P}\in M$ and the corresponding forcing extensions $M[G]$. Specifically, from the atomic diagram one may compute $G$, from the $Δ_0$-diagram one may compute $M[G]$ and its $Δ_0$-diagram, and from the elementary diagram one may compute the elementary diagram of $M[G]$. We also examine the information necessary to make the process functorial, and conclude that in the general case, no such computational process will be functorial. For any such process, it will always be possible to have different isomorphic presentations of a model of set theory $M$ that lead to different non-isomorphic forcing extensions $M[G]$. Indeed, there is no Borel function providing generic filters that is functorial in this sense. △ Less

Submitted 23 November, 2023; v1 submitted 1 July, 2020; originally announced July 2020.

Comments: 27 pages. Inquiries and commentary can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/forcing-as-a-computational-process. Minor updates with version 2. Final minor updates with version 3

Bi-interpretation in weak set theories

Authors: Alfredo Roque Freire, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: In contrast to the robust mutual interpretability phenomenon in set theory, Ali Enayat proved that bi-interpretation is absent: distinct theories extending ZF are never bi-interpretable and models of ZF are bi-interpretable only when they are isomorphic. Nevertheless, for natural weaker set theories, we prove, including Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory $\text{ZFC}^-$ without power set and Zermelo set t… ▽ More In contrast to the robust mutual interpretability phenomenon in set theory, Ali Enayat proved that bi-interpretation is absent: distinct theories extending ZF are never bi-interpretable and models of ZF are bi-interpretable only when they are isomorphic. Nevertheless, for natural weaker set theories, we prove, including Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory $\text{ZFC}^-$ without power set and Zermelo set theory Z, there are nontrivial instances of bi-interpretation. Specifically, there are well-founded models of $\text{ZFC}^-$ that are bi-interpretable, but not isomorphic---even $\langle H_{ω_1},\in\rangle$ and $\langle H_{ω_2},\in\rangle$ can be bi-interpretable---and there are distinct bi-interpretable theories extending $\text{ZFC}^-$. Similarly, using a construction of Mathias, we prove that every model of ZF is bi-interpretable with a model of Zermelo set theory in which the replacement axiom fails. △ Less

Submitted 4 August, 2020; v1 submitted 15 January, 2020; originally announced January 2020.

Comments: 25 pages. Commentary can be made about this article on the second author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/bi-interpretation-in-weak-set-theories. Version 2 corrects the author order to alphabetical and makes some minor inclusions regarding the difference between solidity and semantic tightness and the mutual interpretation of a model of set theory with the theory of its forcing extensions

The Sigma_1-definable universal finite sequence

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Kameryn J. Williams

Abstract: We introduce the $Σ_1$-definable universal finite sequence and prove that it exhibits the universal extension property amongst the countable models of set theory under end-extension. That is, (i) the sequence is $Σ_1$-definable and provably finite; (ii) the sequence is empty in transitive models; and (iii) if $M$ is a countable model of set theory in which the sequence is $s$ and $t$ is any finite… ▽ More We introduce the $Σ_1$-definable universal finite sequence and prove that it exhibits the universal extension property amongst the countable models of set theory under end-extension. That is, (i) the sequence is $Σ_1$-definable and provably finite; (ii) the sequence is empty in transitive models; and (iii) if $M$ is a countable model of set theory in which the sequence is $s$ and $t$ is any finite extension of $s$ in this model, then there is an end-extension of $M$ to a model in which the sequence is $t$. Our proof method grows out of a new infinitary-logic-free proof of the Barwise extension theorem, by which any countable model of set theory is end-extended to a model of $V=L$ or indeed any theory true in a suitable submodel of the original model. The main theorem settles the modal logic of end-extensional potentialism, showing that the potentialist validities of the models of set theory under end-extensions are exactly the assertions of S4. Finally, we introduce the end-extensional maximality principle, which asserts that every possibly necessary sentence is already true, and show that every countable model extends to a model satisfying it. △ Less

Submitted 9 November, 2020; v1 submitted 19 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

Comments: 18 pages

MSC Class: 03H05; 03E40; 03E45

Representing Ordinal Numbers with Arithmetically Interesting Sets of Real Numbers

Authors: D. Dakota Blair, Joel David Hamkins, Kevin O'Bryant

Abstract: For a real number $x$ and set of natural numbers $A$, define $x \ast A := \{ x a \bmod 1: a\in A\}\subseteq [0,1).$ We consider relationships between $x$, $A$, and the order-type of $x\ast A$. For example, for every irrational $x$ and order-type $α$, there is an $A$ with $x\ast A \simeq α$, but if $α$ is a well order, then $A$ must be a thin set. If, however, $A$ is restricted to be a subset of th… ▽ More For a real number $x$ and set of natural numbers $A$, define $x \ast A := \{ x a \bmod 1: a\in A\}\subseteq [0,1).$ We consider relationships between $x$, $A$, and the order-type of $x\ast A$. For example, for every irrational $x$ and order-type $α$, there is an $A$ with $x\ast A \simeq α$, but if $α$ is a well order, then $A$ must be a thin set. If, however, $A$ is restricted to be a subset of the powers of 2, then not every order type is possible, although arbitrarily large countable well orders arise. △ Less

Submitted 21 April, 2020; v1 submitted 30 May, 2019; originally announced May 2019.

Comments: 9 pages (readability improved)

MSC Class: 11J71; 03E10; 03F15

Kelley-Morse set theory does not prove the class Fodor principle

Authors: Victoria Gitman, Joel David Hamkins, Asaf Karagila

Abstract: We show that Kelley-Morse set theory does not prove the class Fodor principle, the assertion that every regressive class function $F:S\to\text{Ord}$ defined on a stationary class $S$ is constant on a stationary subclass. Indeed, it is relatively consistent with KM for any infinite $λ$ with $ω\leqλ\leq\text{Ord}$ that there is a class function $F:\text{Ord}\toλ$ that is not constant on any stationa… ▽ More We show that Kelley-Morse set theory does not prove the class Fodor principle, the assertion that every regressive class function $F:S\to\text{Ord}$ defined on a stationary class $S$ is constant on a stationary subclass. Indeed, it is relatively consistent with KM for any infinite $λ$ with $ω\leqλ\leq\text{Ord}$ that there is a class function $F:\text{Ord}\toλ$ that is not constant on any stationary class. Strikingly, it is consistent with KM that there is a class $A\subseteqω\times\text{Ord}$, such that each section $A_n=\{α\mid (n,α)\in A\}$ contains a class club, but $\bigcap_n A_n$ is empty. Consequently, it is relatively consistent with KM that the class club filter is not $σ$-closed. △ Less

Submitted 10 December, 2020; v1 submitted 8 April, 2019; originally announced April 2019.

Comments: 18 pages. Commentary about this article can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/km-does-not-prove-class-fodor

Journal ref: Fund. Math. 254 (2021), no. 2, 133-154

Set-Theoretic Blockchains

Authors: Miha E. Habič, Joel David Hamkins, Lukas Daniel Klausner, Jonathan Verner, Kameryn J. Williams

Abstract: Given a countable model of set theory, we study the structure of its generic multiverse, the collection of its forcing extensions and ground models, ordered by inclusion. Mostowski showed that any finite poset embeds into the generic multiverse while preserving the nonexistence of upper bounds. We obtain several improvements of his result, using what we call the blockchain construction to build ge… ▽ More Given a countable model of set theory, we study the structure of its generic multiverse, the collection of its forcing extensions and ground models, ordered by inclusion. Mostowski showed that any finite poset embeds into the generic multiverse while preserving the nonexistence of upper bounds. We obtain several improvements of his result, using what we call the blockchain construction to build generic objects with varying degrees of mutual genericity. The method accommodates certain infinite posets, and we can realize these embeddings via a wide variety of forcing notions, while providing control over lower bounds as well. We also give a generalization to class forcing in the context of second-order set theory, and exhibit some further structure in the generic multiverse, such as the existence of exact pairs. △ Less

Submitted 27 March, 2019; v1 submitted 4 August, 2018; originally announced August 2018.

Comments: 25 pages, 3 figures. Commentary concerning this paper can be made on the second author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/set-theoretic-blockchains

MSC Class: 03E40 (Primary) 03E35 (Secondary)

Journal ref: Arch. Math. Logic 58 (7-8), 2019, 965-997

Topological models of arithmetic

Authors: Ali Enayat, Joel David Hamkins, Bartosz Wcisło

Abstract: Ali Enayat had asked whether there is a nonstandard model of Peano arithmetic (PA) that can be represented as $\langle\mathbb{Q},\oplus,\otimes\rangle$, where $\oplus$ and $\otimes$ are continuous functions on the rationals $\mathbb{Q}$. We prove, affirmatively, that indeed every countable model of PA has such a continuous presentation on the rationals. More generally, we investigate the topologic… ▽ More Ali Enayat had asked whether there is a nonstandard model of Peano arithmetic (PA) that can be represented as $\langle\mathbb{Q},\oplus,\otimes\rangle$, where $\oplus$ and $\otimes$ are continuous functions on the rationals $\mathbb{Q}$. We prove, affirmatively, that indeed every countable model of PA has such a continuous presentation on the rationals. More generally, we investigate the topological spaces that arise as such topological models of arithmetic. The reals $\mathbb{R}$, the reals in any finite dimension $\mathbb{R}^n$, the long line and the Cantor space do not, and neither does any Suslin line; many other spaces do; the status of the Baire space is open. △ Less

Submitted 9 November, 2020; v1 submitted 3 August, 2018; originally announced August 2018.

Comments: 17 pages. Commentary can be made about this article on the second author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/topological-models-of-arithmetic. In this version (v3), small misprints of the previous version are corrected, some of the results are finetuned, and an example of an uncountable polish space that supports a continuous model of Successor Arithmetic is presented (Remark 17b)

MSC Class: 03H15 (Primary); 54H10 (Secondary)

Open class determinacy is preserved by forcing

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, W. Hugh Woodin

Abstract: The principle of open class determinacy is preserved by pre-tame class forcing, and after such forcing, every new class well-order is isomorphic to a ground-model class well-order. Similarly, the principle of elementary transfinite recursion $\text{ETR}_Γ$ for a fixed class well-order $Γ$ is preserved by pre-tame class forcing. The full principle ETR itself is preserved by countably strategically… ▽ More The principle of open class determinacy is preserved by pre-tame class forcing, and after such forcing, every new class well-order is isomorphic to a ground-model class well-order. Similarly, the principle of elementary transfinite recursion $\text{ETR}_Γ$ for a fixed class well-order $Γ$ is preserved by pre-tame class forcing. The full principle ETR itself is preserved by countably strategically closed pre-tame class forcing, and after such forcing, every new class well-order is isomorphic to a ground-model class well-order. Meanwhile, it remains open whether ETR is preserved by all forcing, including the forcing merely to add a Cohen real. △ Less

Submitted 28 June, 2018; originally announced June 2018.

Comments: 14 pages. Questions and commentary can be posted at http://jdh.hamkins.org/open-class-determinacy-preserved-by-forcing

The subseries number

Authors: Jörg Brendle, Will Brian, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: Every conditionally convergent series of real numbers has a divergent subseries. How many subsets of the natural numbers are needed so that every conditionally convergent series diverges on the subseries corresponding to one of these sets? The answer to this question is defined to be the subseries number, a new cardinal characteristic of the continuum. This cardinal is bounded below by $\aleph_1$… ▽ More Every conditionally convergent series of real numbers has a divergent subseries. How many subsets of the natural numbers are needed so that every conditionally convergent series diverges on the subseries corresponding to one of these sets? The answer to this question is defined to be the subseries number, a new cardinal characteristic of the continuum. This cardinal is bounded below by $\aleph_1$ and above by the cardinality of the continuum, but it is not provably equal to either. We define three natural variants of the subseries number, and compare them with each other, with their corresponding rearrangement numbers, and with several well-studied cardinal characteristics of the continuum. Many consistency results are obtained from these comparisons, and we obtain another by computing the value of the subseries number in the Laver model. △ Less

Submitted 18 January, 2018; originally announced January 2018.

The modal logic of arithmetic potentialism and the universal algorithm

Authors: Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: I investigate the modal commitments of various conceptions of the philosophy of arithmetic potentialism. Specifically, I consider the natural potentialist systems arising from the models of arithmetic under their natural extension concepts, such as end-extensions, arbitrary extensions, conservative extensions and more. In these potentialist systems, I show, the propositional modal assertions that… ▽ More I investigate the modal commitments of various conceptions of the philosophy of arithmetic potentialism. Specifically, I consider the natural potentialist systems arising from the models of arithmetic under their natural extension concepts, such as end-extensions, arbitrary extensions, conservative extensions and more. In these potentialist systems, I show, the propositional modal assertions that are valid with respect to all arithmetic assertions with parameters are exactly the assertions of S4. With respect to sentences, however, the validities of a model lie between S4 and S5, and these bounds are sharp in that there are models realizing both endpoints. For a model of arithmetic to validate S5 is precisely to fulfill the arithmetic maximality principle, which asserts that every possibly necessary statement is already true, and these models are equivalently characterized as those satisfying a maximal $Σ_1$ theory. The main S4 analysis makes fundamental use of the universal algorithm, of which this article provides a simplified, self-contained account. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the philosophical differences of several fundamentally different potentialist attitudes -- linear inevitability, convergent potentialism and radical branching possibility -- are expressed by their corresponding potentialist modal validities. △ Less

Submitted 19 September, 2023; v1 submitted 14 January, 2018; originally announced January 2018.

Comments: 39 pages. Version v3 has minor revisions, including additional references. Version v4 has further minor revisions and the addition of Chaitin's incompleteness theorem as an easy application of the universal algorithm

The universal finite set

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, W. Hugh Woodin

Abstract: We define a certain finite set in set theory $\{x\mid\varphi(x)\}$ and prove that it exhibits a universal extension property: it can be any desired particular finite set in the right set-theoretic universe and it can become successively any desired larger finite set in top-extensions of that universe. Specifically, ZFC proves the set is finite; the definition $\varphi$ has complexity $Σ_2$, so tha… ▽ More We define a certain finite set in set theory $\{x\mid\varphi(x)\}$ and prove that it exhibits a universal extension property: it can be any desired particular finite set in the right set-theoretic universe and it can become successively any desired larger finite set in top-extensions of that universe. Specifically, ZFC proves the set is finite; the definition $\varphi$ has complexity $Σ_2$, so that any affirmative instance of it $\varphi(x)$ is verified in any sufficiently large rank-initial segment of the universe $V_θ$; the set is empty in any transitive model and others; and if $\varphi$ defines the set $y$ in some countable model $M$ of ZFC and $y\of z$ for some finite set $z$ in $M$, then there is a top-extension of $M$ to a model $N$ in which $\varphi$ defines the new set $z$. Thus, the set shows that no model of set theory can realize a maximal $Σ_2$ theory with its natural number parameters, although this is possible without parameters. Using the universal finite set, we prove that the validities of top-extensional set-theoretic potentialism, the modal principles valid in the Kripke model of all countable models of set theory, each accessing its top-extensions, are precisely the assertions of S4. Furthermore, if ZFC is consistent, then there are models of ZFC realizing the top-extensional maximality principle. △ Less

Submitted 19 June, 2018; v1 submitted 21 November, 2017; originally announced November 2017.

Comments: 16 pages. Commentary can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/the-universal-finite-set. Version 2 makes minor changes, including a footnote concerning the history of the universal algorithm and additional references

The set-theoretic universe $V$ is not necessarily a class-forcing extension of HOD

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Jonas Reitz

Abstract: In light of the celebrated theorem of Vopěnka (1972), proving in ZFC that every set is generic over HOD, it is natural to inquire whether the set-theoretic universe $V$ must be a class-forcing extension of HOD by some possibly proper-class forcing notion in HOD. We show, negatively, that if ZFC is consistent, then there is a model of ZFC that is not a class-forcing extension of its HOD for any cla… ▽ More In light of the celebrated theorem of Vopěnka (1972), proving in ZFC that every set is generic over HOD, it is natural to inquire whether the set-theoretic universe $V$ must be a class-forcing extension of HOD by some possibly proper-class forcing notion in HOD. We show, negatively, that if ZFC is consistent, then there is a model of ZFC that is not a class-forcing extension of its HOD for any class forcing notion definable in HOD and with definable forcing relations there (allowing parameters). Meanwhile, S. Friedman (2012) showed, positively, that if one augments HOD with a certain ZFC-amenable class $A$, definable in $V$, then the set-theoretic universe $V$ is a class-forcing extension of the expanded structure $\langle\text{HOD},\in,A\rangle$. Our result shows that this augmentation process can be necessary. The same example shows that $V$ is not necessarily a class-forcing extension of the mantle, and the method provides counterexamples to the intermediate model property, namely, a class-forcing extension $V\subseteq W\subseteq V[G]$ with an intermediate transitive inner model $W$ that is neither a class-forcing extension of $V$ nor a ground model of $V[G]$ by any definable class forcing notion with definable forcing relations. △ Less

Submitted 22 September, 2017; v1 submitted 18 September, 2017; originally announced September 2017.

Comments: 15 pages. Version v2 includes theorem 14, which provides a simultaneous counterexample to the class-forcing analogue of the intermediate model theorem. Questions and commentary can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/the-universe-need-not-be-a-class-forcing-extension-of-hod

Inner-model reflection principles

Authors: Neil Barton, Andrés Eduardo Caicedo, Gunter Fuchs, Joel David Hamkins, Jonas Reitz, Ralf Schindler

Abstract: We introduce and consider the inner-model reflection principle, which asserts that whenever a statement $\varphi(a)$ in the first-order language of set theory is true in the set-theoretic universe $V$, then it is also true in a proper inner model $W\subsetneq V$. A stronger principle, the ground-model reflection principle, asserts that any such $\varphi(a)$ true in $V$ is also true in some non-tri… ▽ More We introduce and consider the inner-model reflection principle, which asserts that whenever a statement $\varphi(a)$ in the first-order language of set theory is true in the set-theoretic universe $V$, then it is also true in a proper inner model $W\subsetneq V$. A stronger principle, the ground-model reflection principle, asserts that any such $\varphi(a)$ true in $V$ is also true in some non-trivial ground model of the universe with respect to set forcing. These principles each express a form of width reflection in contrast to the usual height reflection of the Lévy-Montague reflection theorem. They are each equiconsistent with ZFC and indeed $Π_2$-conservative over ZFC, being forceable by class forcing while preserving any desired rank-initial segment of the universe. Furthermore, the inner-model reflection principle is a consequence of the existence of sufficient large cardinals, and lightface formulations of the reflection principles follow from the maximality principle MP and from the inner-model hypothesis IMH. We also consider some questions concerning the expressibility of the principles. △ Less

Submitted 5 September, 2018; v1 submitted 22 August, 2017; originally announced August 2017.

Comments: 17 pages, revised version incorporating suggestions of the referees; a new co-author has been added. Commentary concerning this paper can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/inner-model-reflection-principles

MSC Class: Primary 03E45; Secondary 03E35; 03E55; 03E65

Journal ref: Studia Logica 108 (2020), no. 3, 573-595

The modal logic of set-theoretic potentialism and the potentialist maximality principles

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Øystein Linnebo

Abstract: We analyze the precise modal commitments of several natural varieties of set-theoretic potentialism, using tools we develop for a general model-theoretic account of potentialism, building on those of Hamkins, Leibman and Löwe, including the use of buttons, switches, dials and ratchets. Among the potentialist conceptions we consider are: rank potentialism (true in all larger $V_β$); Grothendieck-Ze… ▽ More We analyze the precise modal commitments of several natural varieties of set-theoretic potentialism, using tools we develop for a general model-theoretic account of potentialism, building on those of Hamkins, Leibman and Löwe, including the use of buttons, switches, dials and ratchets. Among the potentialist conceptions we consider are: rank potentialism (true in all larger $V_β$); Grothendieck-Zermelo potentialism (true in all larger $V_κ$ for inaccessible cardinals $κ$); transitive-set potentialism (true in all larger transitive sets); forcing potentialism (true in all forcing extensions); countable-transitive-model potentialism (true in all larger countable transitive models of ZFC); countable-model potentialism (true in all larger countable models of ZFC); and others. In each case, we identify lower bounds for the modal validities, which are generally either S4.2 or S4.3, and an upper bound of S5, proving in each case that these bounds are optimal. The validity of S5 in a world is a potentialist maximality principle, an interesting set-theoretic principle of its own. The results can be viewed as providing an analysis of the modal commitments of the various set-theoretic multiverse conceptions corresponding to each potentialist account. △ Less

Submitted 3 August, 2018; v1 submitted 4 August, 2017; originally announced August 2017.

Comments: 36 pages. Commentary can be made about this article at http://jdh.hamkins.org/set-theoretic-potentialism. Minor revisions in v2; further minor revisions in v3

Boolean ultrapowers, the Bukovsky-Dehornoy phenomenon, and iterated ultrapowers

Authors: Gunter Fuchs, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: We show that while the length $ω$ iterated ultrapower by a normal ultrafilter is a Boolean ultrapower by the Boolean algebra of Prikry forcing, it is consistent that no iteration of length greater than $ω$ (of the same ultrafilter and its images) is a Boolean ultrapower. For longer iterations, where different ultrafilters are used, this is possible, though, and we give Magidor forcing and a genera… ▽ More We show that while the length $ω$ iterated ultrapower by a normal ultrafilter is a Boolean ultrapower by the Boolean algebra of Prikry forcing, it is consistent that no iteration of length greater than $ω$ (of the same ultrafilter and its images) is a Boolean ultrapower. For longer iterations, where different ultrafilters are used, this is possible, though, and we give Magidor forcing and a generalization of Prikry forcing as examples. We refer to the discovery that the intersection of the finite iterates of the universe by a normal measure is the same as the generic extension of the direct limit model by the critical sequence as the Bukovsky-Dehornoy phenomenon, and we develop a sufficient criterion (the existence of a simple skeleton) for when a version of this phenomenon holds in the context of Boolean ultrapowers. Assuming that the canonical generic filter over the Boolean ultrapower model has what we call a continuous representation, we show that the Boolean model consists precisely of those members of the intersection model that have continuously and eventually uniformly represented codes. △ Less

Submitted 20 July, 2017; originally announced July 2017.

MSC Class: 03E35; 03E40; 03E45; 03E55; 03C20

The exact strength of the class forcing theorem

Authors: Victoria Gitman, Joel David Hamkins, Peter Holy, Philipp Schlicht, Kameryn Williams

Abstract: The class forcing theorem, which asserts that every class forcing notion $\mathbb{P}$ admits a forcing relation $\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}}$, that is, a relation satisfying the forcing relation recursion -- it follows that statements true in the corresponding forcing extensions are forced and forced statements are true -- is equivalent over Gödel-Bernays set theory GBC to the principle of elementary tran… ▽ More The class forcing theorem, which asserts that every class forcing notion $\mathbb{P}$ admits a forcing relation $\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}}$, that is, a relation satisfying the forcing relation recursion -- it follows that statements true in the corresponding forcing extensions are forced and forced statements are true -- is equivalent over Gödel-Bernays set theory GBC to the principle of elementary transfinite recursion $\text{ETR}_{\text{Ord}}$ for class recursions of length $\text{Ord}$. It is also equivalent to the existence of truth predicates for the infinitary languages $\mathcal{L}_{\text{Ord},ω}(\in,A)$, allowing any class parameter $A$; to the existence of truth predicates for the language $\mathcal{L}_{\text{Ord},\text{Ord}}(\in,A)$; to the existence of $\text{Ord}$-iterated truth predicates for first-order set theory $\mathcal{L}_{ω,ω}(\in,A)$; to the assertion that every separative class partial order $\mathbb{P}$ has a set-complete class Boolean completion; to a class-join separation principle; and to the principle of determinacy for clopen class games of rank at most $\text{Ord}+1$. Unlike set forcing, if every class forcing notion $\mathbb{P}$ has a forcing relation merely for atomic formulas, then every such $\mathbb{P}$ has a uniform forcing relation applicable simultaneously to all formulas. Our results situate the class forcing theorem in the rich hierarchy of theories between GBC and Kelley-Morse set theory KM. △ Less

Submitted 10 March, 2021; v1 submitted 12 July, 2017; originally announced July 2017.

Comments: 34 pages. Commentary concerning this paper can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/class-forcing-theorem

Journal ref: J. symb. log. 85 (2020) 869-905

When does every definable nonempty set have a definable element?

Authors: François G. Dorais, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: The assertion that every definable set has a definable element is equivalent over ZF to the principle $V=\text{HOD}$, and indeed, we prove, so is the assertion merely that every $Π_2$-definable set has an ordinal-definable element. Meanwhile, every model of ZFC has a forcing extension satisfying $V\neq\text{HOD}$ in which every $Σ_2$-definable set has an ordinal-definable element. Similar results… ▽ More The assertion that every definable set has a definable element is equivalent over ZF to the principle $V=\text{HOD}$, and indeed, we prove, so is the assertion merely that every $Π_2$-definable set has an ordinal-definable element. Meanwhile, every model of ZFC has a forcing extension satisfying $V\neq\text{HOD}$ in which every $Σ_2$-definable set has an ordinal-definable element. Similar results hold for $\text{HOD}(\mathbb{R})$ and $\text{HOD}(\text{Ord}^ω)$ and other natural instances of $\text{HOD}(X)$. △ Less

Submitted 22 June, 2017; originally announced June 2017.

Comments: 9 pages. Commentary concerning this article can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/definable-sets-with-definable-elements

A model of the generic Vopěnka principle in which the ordinals are not Mahlo

Authors: Victoria Gitman, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: 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 $Δ_2$-definable class containing no regular cardinals. In such a model, there can be no $Σ_2$-reflecting ca… ▽ More 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 $Δ_2$-definable class containing no regular cardinals. In such a model, there can be no $Σ_2$-reflecting cardinals and hence also no remarkable cardinals. This latter fact answers negatively a question of Bagaria, Gitman and Schindler. △ Less

Submitted 15 April, 2018; v1 submitted 2 June, 2017; originally announced June 2017.

Comments: 19 pages. Commentary concerning this paper can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/generic-vopenka-ord-not-mahlo. v2 has minor revisions

The inclusion relations of the countable models of set theory are all isomorphic

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Makoto Kikuchi

Abstract: The structures $\langle M,\subseteq^M\rangle$ arising as the inclusion relation of a countable model of sufficient set theory $\langle M,\in^M\rangle$, whether well-founded or not, are all isomorphic. These structures $\langle M,\subseteq^M\rangle$ are exactly the countable saturated models of the theory of set-theoretic mereology: an unbounded atomic relatively complemented distributive lattice.… ▽ More The structures $\langle M,\subseteq^M\rangle$ arising as the inclusion relation of a countable model of sufficient set theory $\langle M,\in^M\rangle$, whether well-founded or not, are all isomorphic. These structures $\langle M,\subseteq^M\rangle$ are exactly the countable saturated models of the theory of set-theoretic mereology: an unbounded atomic relatively complemented distributive lattice. A very weak set theory suffices, even finite set theory, provided that one excludes the $ω$-standard models with no infinite sets and the $ω$-standard models of set theory with an amorphous set. Analogous results hold also for class theories such as Gödel-Bernays set theory and Kelley-Morse set theory. △ Less

Submitted 14 April, 2017; originally announced April 2017.

Comments: 20 pages. Commentary can be made on the first author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/inclusion-relations-are-all-isomorphic

Computable quotient presentations of models of arithmetic and set theory

Authors: Michał Tomasz Godziszewski, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: We prove various extensions of the Tennenbaum phenomenon to the case of computable quotient presentations of models of arithmetic and set theory. Specifically, no nonstandard model of arithmetic has a computable quotient presentation by a c.e. equivalence relation. No $Σ_1$-sound nonstandard model of arithmetic has a computable quotient presentation by a co-c.e. equivalence relation. No nonstandar… ▽ More We prove various extensions of the Tennenbaum phenomenon to the case of computable quotient presentations of models of arithmetic and set theory. Specifically, no nonstandard model of arithmetic has a computable quotient presentation by a c.e. equivalence relation. No $Σ_1$-sound nonstandard model of arithmetic has a computable quotient presentation by a co-c.e. equivalence relation. No nonstandard model of arithmetic in the language $\{+,\cdot,\leq\}$ has a computably enumerable quotient presentation by any equivalence relation of any complexity. No model of ZFC or even much weaker set theories has a computable quotient presentation by any equivalence relation of any complexity. And similarly no nonstandard model of finite set theory has a computable quotient presentation. △ Less

Submitted 27 February, 2017; originally announced February 2017.

Comments: This is a preliminary report of research initiated at the conference Mathematical Logic and its Applications, held September 2016 in memory of Professor Yuzuru Kakuda of Kobe University at the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences (RIMS) in Kyoto. 15 pages. Commentary can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/computable-quotient-presentations

The Implicitly Constructible Universe

Authors: Marcia J. Groszek, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: We answer several questions posed by Hamkins and Leahy concerning the implicitly constructible universe, Imp. Specifically, we show that it is relatively consistent with ZFC that Imp satisfies the negation of CH, that Imp is not HOD, and that Imp satisfies V $\neq$ Imp, or in other words, that $(Imp)^{Imp}\neq Imp$. We answer several questions posed by Hamkins and Leahy concerning the implicitly constructible universe, Imp. Specifically, we show that it is relatively consistent with ZFC that Imp satisfies the negation of CH, that Imp is not HOD, and that Imp satisfies V $\neq$ Imp, or in other words, that $(Imp)^{Imp}\neq Imp$. △ Less

Submitted 25 February, 2017; originally announced February 2017.

Comments: 20 pages. Commentary concerning this article can be made on the second author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/the-implicitly-constructible-universe

Journal ref: J. symb. log. 84 (2019) 1403-1421

The Rearrangement Number

Authors: Andreas Blass, Jörg Brendle, Will Brian, Joel David Hamkins, Michael Hardy, Paul B. Larson

Abstract: How many permutations of the natural numbers are needed so that every conditionally convergent series of real numbers can be rearranged to no longer converge to the same sum? We define the \emph{rearrangement number}, a new cardinal characteristic of the continuum, as the answer to this question. We compare the rearrangement number with several natural variants, for example one obtained by requiri… ▽ More How many permutations of the natural numbers are needed so that every conditionally convergent series of real numbers can be rearranged to no longer converge to the same sum? We define the \emph{rearrangement number}, a new cardinal characteristic of the continuum, as the answer to this question. We compare the rearrangement number with several natural variants, for example one obtained by requiring the rearranged series to still converge but to a new, finite limit. We also compare the rearrangement number with several well-studied cardinal characteristics of the continuum. We present some new forcing constructions designed to add permutations that rearrange series from the ground model in particular ways, thereby obtaining consistency results going beyond those that follow from comparisons with familiar cardinal characteristics. Finally, we deal briefly with some variants concerning rearrangements by a special sort of permutation and with rearranging some divergent series to become (conditionally) convergent. △ Less

Submitted 13 May, 2019; v1 submitted 22 December, 2016; originally announced December 2016.

ZFC proves that the class of ordinals is not weakly compact for definable classes

Authors: Ali Enayat, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: We prove that the class of all ordinals Ord is not weakly compact with respect to definable classes. Specifically, in any model of ZFC, the definable tree property fails for Ord, in that there is a definable Ord tree with no definable cofinal branch; the definable partition property fails, in that there is a definable 2-coloring of pairs from a certain definable proper class, with no definable hom… ▽ More We prove that the class of all ordinals Ord is not weakly compact with respect to definable classes. Specifically, in any model of ZFC, the definable tree property fails for Ord, in that there is a definable Ord tree with no definable cofinal branch; the definable partition property fails, in that there is a definable 2-coloring of pairs from a certain definable proper class, with no definable homogeneous proper class; and the definable compactness property fails for $\mathcal{L}_{\infty,ω}$, in that there is a definable theory in this logic all of whose set-sized subtheories are satisfiable, but which has no definable proper class model. In addition, we prove that the definable diamond principle $\Diamond_{\rm Ord}$ holds if and only if there is a definable well-ordering of the universe. And we prove that the common theory of all spartan models of Gödel-Bernays set theory, those having only definable classes, is $Π^1_1$-complete. △ Less

Submitted 26 October, 2017; v1 submitted 9 October, 2016; originally announced October 2016.

Comments: 24 pages. Questions and commentary can be made on the second author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/ord-is-not-definably-weakly-compact. v2 has minor revisions

The Ground Axiom

Authors: Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: The ground axiom is the assertion that the set-theoretic universe is not obtainable by forcing over any inner model. Although this appears at first to be a second-order assertion, it is actually first-order expressible in the language of set theory. This article is the extended abstract for a talk at the 2005 Workshop in Set Theory at the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach. The ground axiom is the assertion that the set-theoretic universe is not obtainable by forcing over any inner model. Although this appears at first to be a second-order assertion, it is actually first-order expressible in the language of set theory. This article is the extended abstract for a talk at the 2005 Workshop in Set Theory at the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach. △ Less

Submitted 3 July, 2016; originally announced July 2016.

Comments: This article appeared in 2005. 3 pages. Commentary can be made on my blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/thegroundaxiom/

Journal ref: Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach Report, vol. 55, pp. 3160-3162, 2005

Small Forcing Makes Any Cardinal Superdestructible

Authors: Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: Small forcing always ruins the indestructibility of an indestructible supercompact cardinal. In fact, after small forcing, any cardinal $κ$ becomes superdestructible---any further ${<}κ$-closed forcing which adds a subset to $κ$ will destroy the measurability, even the weak compactness, of $κ$. Nevertheless, after small forcing indestructible cardinals remain resurrectible, but never strongly resu… ▽ More Small forcing always ruins the indestructibility of an indestructible supercompact cardinal. In fact, after small forcing, any cardinal $κ$ becomes superdestructible---any further ${<}κ$-closed forcing which adds a subset to $κ$ will destroy the measurability, even the weak compactness, of $κ$. Nevertheless, after small forcing indestructible cardinals remain resurrectible, but never strongly resurrectible. △ Less

Submitted 3 July, 2016; originally announced July 2016.

Comments: This paper appeared in 1998; I have finally now uploaded the article to the arxiv. Commentary concerning this article can be made on the author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/superdestructibility/

Journal ref: The Journal of Symbolic Logic, volume 63, number 1, March 1998, pp. 51-58

Destruction or Preservation As You Like It

Authors: Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: The Gap Forcing Theorem, a key contribution of this paper, implies essentially that after any reverse Easton iteration of closed forcing, such as the Laver preparation, every supercompactness measure on a supercompact cardinal extends a measure from the ground model. Thus, such forcing can create no new supercompact cardinals, and, if the GCH holds, neither can it increase the degree of supercompa… ▽ More The Gap Forcing Theorem, a key contribution of this paper, implies essentially that after any reverse Easton iteration of closed forcing, such as the Laver preparation, every supercompactness measure on a supercompact cardinal extends a measure from the ground model. Thus, such forcing can create no new supercompact cardinals, and, if the GCH holds, neither can it increase the degree of supercompactness of any cardinal; in particular, it can create no new measurable cardinals. In a crescendo of what I call exact preservation theorems, I use this new technology to perform a kind of partial Laver preparation, and thereby finely control the class of posets which preserve a supercompact cardinal. Eventually, I prove the `As You Like It' Theorem, which asserts that the class of ${<}κ$-directed closed posets which preserve a supercompact cardinal $κ$ can be made by forcing to conform with any pre-selected local definition which respects the equivalence of forcing. Along the way I separate completely the levels of the superdestructibility hierarchy, and, in an epilogue, prove that the notions of fragility and superdestructibility are orthogonal---all four combinations are possible. △ Less

Submitted 3 July, 2016; originally announced July 2016.

Comments: This paper appeared in 1998; I am finally now uploading it to the arxiv. 45 pages. Commentary can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/asyoulikeit/

Journal ref: Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 91 (1998) 191-229

The Vopěnka principle is inequivalent to but conservative over the Vopěnka scheme

Authors: Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: The Vopěnka principle, which asserts that every proper class of first-order structures in a common language admits an elementary embedding between two of its members, is not equivalent over GBC to the first-order Vopěnka scheme, which makes the Vopěnka assertion only for the first-order definable classes of structures. Nevertheless, the two Vopěnka axioms are equiconsistent and they have exactly t… ▽ More The Vopěnka principle, which asserts that every proper class of first-order structures in a common language admits an elementary embedding between two of its members, is not equivalent over GBC to the first-order Vopěnka scheme, which makes the Vopěnka assertion only for the first-order definable classes of structures. Nevertheless, the two Vopěnka axioms are equiconsistent and they have exactly the same first-order consequences in the language of set theory. Specifically, GBC plus the Vopěnka principle is conservative over ZFC plus the Vopěnka scheme for first-order assertions in the language of set theory. △ Less

Submitted 12 June, 2016; originally announced June 2016.

Comments: 11 pages. Commentary can be made on the author's blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/vopenka-principle-vopenka-scheme

Set-theoretic mereology

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Makoto Kikuchi

Abstract: We consider a set-theoretic version of mereology based on the inclusion relation $\subseteq$ and analyze how well it might serve as a foundation of mathematics. After establishing the non-definability of $\in$ from $\subseteq$, we identify the natural axioms for $\subseteq$-based mereology, which constitute a finitely axiomatizable, complete, decidable theory. Ultimately, for these reasons, we con… ▽ More We consider a set-theoretic version of mereology based on the inclusion relation $\subseteq$ and analyze how well it might serve as a foundation of mathematics. After establishing the non-definability of $\in$ from $\subseteq$, we identify the natural axioms for $\subseteq$-based mereology, which constitute a finitely axiomatizable, complete, decidable theory. Ultimately, for these reasons, we conclude that this form of set-theoretic mereology cannot by itself serve as a foundation of mathematics. Meanwhile, augmented forms of set-theoretic mereology, such as that obtained by adding the singleton operator, are foundationally robust. △ Less

Submitted 25 April, 2016; v1 submitted 25 January, 2016; originally announced January 2016.

Comments: 21 pages; questions and commentary can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/set-theoretic-mereology. Version 2 makes various minor improvements and corrections

MSC Class: 03E99; 03A05

Upward closure and amalgamation in the generic multiverse of a countable model of set theory

Authors: Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: I prove several theorems concerning upward closure and amalgamation in the generic multiverse of a countable transitive model of set theory. Every such model $W$ has forcing extensions $W[c]$ and $W[d]$ by adding a Cohen real, which cannot be amalgamated in any further extension, but some nontrivial forcing notions have all their extensions amalgamable. An increasing chain… ▽ More I prove several theorems concerning upward closure and amalgamation in the generic multiverse of a countable transitive model of set theory. Every such model $W$ has forcing extensions $W[c]$ and $W[d]$ by adding a Cohen real, which cannot be amalgamated in any further extension, but some nontrivial forcing notions have all their extensions amalgamable. An increasing chain $W[G_0]\subseteq W[G_1]\subseteq\cdots$ has an upper bound $W[H]$ if and only if the forcing had uniformly bounded essential size in $W$. Every chain $W\subseteq W[c_0]\subseteq W[c_1]\subseteq\cdots$ of extensions adding Cohen reals is bounded above by $W[d]$ for some $W$-generic Cohen real $d$. △ Less

Submitted 3 November, 2015; originally announced November 2015.

Comments: Based on my talk at the conference, Recent Developments in Axiomatic Set Theory at the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences (RIMS) at Kyoto University, Japan in September, 2015. 14 pages. Commentary can be made on my blog at http://jdh.hamkins.org/upward-closure-and-amalgamation-in-the-generic-multiverse

A position in infinite chess with game value $ω^4$

Authors: C. D. A. Evans, Joel David Hamkins, Norman Lewis Perlmutter

Abstract: We present a position in infinite chess exhibiting an ordinal game value of $ω^4$, thereby improving on the previously largest-known values of $ω^3$ and $ω^3\cdot 4$. We present a position in infinite chess exhibiting an ordinal game value of $ω^4$, thereby improving on the previously largest-known values of $ω^3$ and $ω^3\cdot 4$. △ Less

Submitted 27 October, 2015; originally announced October 2015.

Comments: 24 pages. 6 chess diagrams. Commentary concerning this paper can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/a-position-in-infinite-chess-with-game-value-omega-to-the-4

Open determinacy for class games

Authors: Victoria Gitman, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: The principle of open determinacy for class games---two-player games of perfect information with plays of length $ω$, where the moves are chosen from a possibly proper class, such as games on the ordinals---is not provable in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory ZFC or Gödel-Bernays set theory GBC, if these theories are consistent, because provably in ZFC there is a definable open proper class game with no… ▽ More The principle of open determinacy for class games---two-player games of perfect information with plays of length $ω$, where the moves are chosen from a possibly proper class, such as games on the ordinals---is not provable in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory ZFC or Gödel-Bernays set theory GBC, if these theories are consistent, because provably in ZFC there is a definable open proper class game with no definable winning strategy. In fact, the principle of open determinacy and even merely clopen determinacy for class games implies Con(ZFC) and iterated instances Con(Con(ZFC)) and more, because it implies that there is a satisfaction class for first-order truth and indeed a transfinite tower of truth predicates for iterated truth-about-truth, relative to any class parameter. This is perhaps explained, in light of the Tarskian recursive definition of truth, by the more general fact that the principle of clopen determinacy is exactly equivalent over GBC to the principle of elementary transfinite recursion ETR over well-founded class relations. Meanwhile, the principle of open determinacy for class games is provable in the stronger theory GBC+$Π^1_1$-comprehension, a proper fragment of Kelley-Morse set theory KM. △ Less

Submitted 7 July, 2016; v1 submitted 3 September, 2015; originally announced September 2015.

Comments: 18 pages; commentary concerning this article can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/open-determinacy-for-class-games

Ehrenfeucht's lemma in set theory

Authors: Gunter Fuchs, Victoria Gitman, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: Ehrenfeucht's lemma (1973) asserts that whenever one element of a model of Peano arithmetic is definable from another, then they satisfy different types. We consider here the analogue of Ehrenfeucht's lemma for models of set theory. The original argument applies directly to the ordinal-definable elements of any model of set theory, and in particular, Ehrenfeucht's lemma holds fully for models of s… ▽ More Ehrenfeucht's lemma (1973) asserts that whenever one element of a model of Peano arithmetic is definable from another, then they satisfy different types. We consider here the analogue of Ehrenfeucht's lemma for models of set theory. The original argument applies directly to the ordinal-definable elements of any model of set theory, and in particular, Ehrenfeucht's lemma holds fully for models of set theory satisfying $V=HOD$. We show that the lemma can fail, however, in models of set theory with $V\neq HOD$, and it necessarily fails in the forcing extension to add a generic Cohen real. We go on to formulate a scheme of natural parametric generalizations of Ehrenfeucht's lemma, namely, the principles of the form $EL(A,P,Q)$, which asserts that whenever an object $b$ is definable from some $a\in A$ using parameters in $P$, with $b\neq a$, then the types of $a$ and $b$ over $Q$ are different. We also consider various analogues of Ehrenfeucht's lemma obtained by using algebraicity in place of definability, where a set $b$ is algebraic in $a$ if it is a member of a finite set definable from $a$ (as in Hamkins, Leahy arXiv:1305.5953). Ehrenfeucht's lemma holds for the ordinal-algebraic sets, we prove, if and only if the ordinal-algebraic and ordinal-definable sets coincide. Using similar analysis, we answer two open questions posed by Hamkins and Leahy, by showing that (i) algebraicity and definability need not coincide in models of set theory and (ii) the internal and external notions of being ordinal algebraic need not coincide. △ Less

Submitted 8 January, 2015; originally announced January 2015.

Comments: 13 pages. Commentary concerning this paper can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/ehrenfeuchts-lemma-in-set-theory

MSC Class: 03Exx; 03Cxx

Journal ref: Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 59, no. 3 (2018), 355-370

Incomparable $ω_1$-like models of set theory

Authors: Gunter Fuchs, Victoria Gitman, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: We show that the analogues of the Hamkins embedding theorems, proved for the countable models of set theory, do not hold when extended to the uncountable realm of $ω_1$-like models of set theory. Specifically, under the $\diamondsuit$ hypothesis and suitable consistency assumptions, we show that there is a family of $2^{ω_1}$ many $ω_1$-like models of ZFC, all with the same ordinals, that are pair… ▽ More We show that the analogues of the Hamkins embedding theorems, proved for the countable models of set theory, do not hold when extended to the uncountable realm of $ω_1$-like models of set theory. Specifically, under the $\diamondsuit$ hypothesis and suitable consistency assumptions, we show that there is a family of $2^{ω_1}$ many $ω_1$-like models of ZFC, all with the same ordinals, that are pairwise incomparable under embeddability; there can be a transitive $ω_1$-like model of ZFC that does not embed into its own constructible universe; and there can be an $ω_1$-like model of PA whose structure of hereditarily finite sets is not universal for the $ω_1$-like models of set theory. △ Less

Submitted 5 January, 2015; originally announced January 2015.

Comments: 15 pages. Commentary concerning this article can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/incomparable-omega-one-like-models-of-set-theory

MSC Class: O3Exx; 03Cxx

Large cardinals need not be large in HOD

Authors: Yong Cheng, Sy-David Friedman, Joel David Hamkins

Abstract: We prove that large cardinals need not generally exhibit their large cardinal nature in HOD. For example, a supercompact cardinal $κ$ need not be weakly compact in HOD, and there can be a proper class of supercompact cardinals in $V$, none of them weakly compact in HOD, with no supercompact cardinals in HOD. Similar results hold for many other types of large cardinals, such as measurable and stron… ▽ More We prove that large cardinals need not generally exhibit their large cardinal nature in HOD. For example, a supercompact cardinal $κ$ need not be weakly compact in HOD, and there can be a proper class of supercompact cardinals in $V$, none of them weakly compact in HOD, with no supercompact cardinals in HOD. Similar results hold for many other types of large cardinals, such as measurable and strong cardinals. △ Less

Submitted 3 July, 2015; v1 submitted 23 July, 2014; originally announced July 2014.

Comments: 20 pages. Commentary concerning this article can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/large-cardinals-need-not-be-large-in-hod

MSC Class: 03E55; 03E45

Journal ref: Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, Volume 166, Issue 11, November 2015, Pages 1186-1198

Strongly uplifting cardinals and the boldface resurrection axioms

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Thomas A. Johnstone

Abstract: We introduce the strongly uplifting cardinals, which are equivalently characterized, we prove, as the superstrongly unfoldable cardinals and also as the almost hugely unfoldable cardinals, and we show that their existence is equiconsistent over ZFC with natural instances of the boldface resurrection axiom, such as the boldface resurrection axiom for proper forcing. We introduce the strongly uplifting cardinals, which are equivalently characterized, we prove, as the superstrongly unfoldable cardinals and also as the almost hugely unfoldable cardinals, and we show that their existence is equiconsistent over ZFC with natural instances of the boldface resurrection axiom, such as the boldface resurrection axiom for proper forcing. △ Less

Submitted 30 October, 2014; v1 submitted 11 March, 2014; originally announced March 2014.

Comments: 24 pages. Commentary concerning this article can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/strongly-uplifting-cardinals-and-boldface-resurrection

MSC Class: 03E55; 03E57

Satisfaction is not absolute

Authors: Joel David Hamkins, Ruizhi Yang

Abstract: We prove that the satisfaction relation $\mathcal{N}\models\varphi[\vec a]$ of first-order logic is not absolute between models of set theory having the structure $\mathcal{N}$ and the formulas $\varphi$ all in common. Two models of set theory can have the same natural numbers, for example, and the same standard model of arithmetic $\langle\mathbb{N},{+},{\cdot},0,1,{\lt}\rangle$, yet disagree on… ▽ More We prove that the satisfaction relation $\mathcal{N}\models\varphi[\vec a]$ of first-order logic is not absolute between models of set theory having the structure $\mathcal{N}$ and the formulas $\varphi$ all in common. Two models of set theory can have the same natural numbers, for example, and the same standard model of arithmetic $\langle\mathbb{N},{+},{\cdot},0,1,{\lt}\rangle$, yet disagree on their theories of arithmetic truth; two models of set theory can have the same natural numbers and the same arithmetic truths, yet disagree on their truths-about-truth, at any desired level of the iterated truth-predicate hierarchy; two models of set theory can have the same natural numbers and the same reals, yet disagree on projective truth; two models of set theory can have the same $\langle H_{ω_2},{\in}\rangle$ or the same rank-initial segment $\langle V_δ,{\in}\rangle$, yet disagree on which assertions are true in these structures. On the basis of these mathematical results, we argue that a philosophical commitment to the determinateness of the theory of truth for a structure cannot be seen as a consequence solely of the determinateness of the structure in which that truth resides. The determinate nature of arithmetic truth, for example, is not a consequence of the determinate nature of the arithmetic structure $\mathbb{N}=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ itself, but rather, we argue, is an additional higher-order commitment requiring its own analysis and justification. △ Less

Submitted 2 December, 2013; originally announced December 2013.

Comments: 34 pages. Commentary concerning this article can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/satisfaction-is-not-absolute

MSC Class: 03E; 03E