Asperó and Schindler have completely solved the Axiom [Formula: see text] vs. [Formula: see text] problem. They have proved that if [Formula: see text] holds then Axiom [Formula: see text] holds, with no additional assumptions. The key question now concerns the relationship between [Formula: see text] and Axiom [Formula: see text]. This is because the foundational issues raised by the problem of Axiom [Formula: see text] vs. [Formula: see text] arguably persist in the problem of Axiom [Formula: see text] vs. (...) [Formula: see text]. The first of our two main theorems is that Axiom [Formula: see text] is equivalent to Axiom [Formula: see text], and as a corollary we show that Axiom [Formula: see text] fails in all the known models of [Formula: see text]. This suggests that [Formula: see text] actually refutes Axiom [Formula: see text]. Our second main theorem is that the [Formula: see text] Conjecture holds assuming [Formula: see text]. This is the strongest partial result known on this conjecture which is one of the central open problems of [Formula: see text]-theory and [Formula: see text]-logic. These results identify a fundamental asymmetry between the Continuum Hypothesis and any axiom which is both [Formula: see text]-expressible and which implies [Formula: see text], on the basis of generic absoluteness for the simplest of the nontrivial sentences of Third-Order Number Theory. These are the [Formula: see text]-sentences with no parameters. Such sentences are those which simply assert the existence of a set [Formula: see text] for which some property involving only quantification over [Formula: see text] holds. (shrink)

We give a fairly complete account which first shows that the solution to the inner model problem for one supercompact cardinal will yield an ultimate version ofLand then shows that the various current approaches to inner model theory must be fundamentally altered to provide that solution.

We investigate both iteration hypotheses and extender models at the level of one supercompact cardinal. The HOD Conjecture is introduced and shown to be a key conjecture both for the Inner Model Program and for understanding the limits of the large cardinal hierarchy. We show that if the HOD Conjecture is true then this provides strong evidence for the existence of an ultimate version of Gödel's constructible universe L. Whether or not this "ultimate" L exists is now arguably the central (...) issue for the Inner Model Program. (shrink)

We investigate large cardinal axioms beyond the level of ω-huge in context of the universality of the suitable extender models of [Suitable Extender Models I, J. Math. Log.10 101–339]. We show that there is an analog of ADℝ at the level of ω-huge, more precisely the construction of the minimum model of ADℝ generalizes to the level of Vλ+1. This allows us to formulate the indicated generalization of ADℝ and then to prove that if the axiom holds in V at (...) a proper class of λ then in every suitable extender model, the axiom holds at a proper class of λ. (shrink)

The results of this paper concern the effective cardinal structure of the subsets of [ω1]<ω1, the set of all countable subsets of ω1. The main results include dichotomy theorems and theorems which show that the effective cardinal structure is complicated.

We prove that if $V = L [s]$ where $s$ is an $\omega$ -sequence of ordinals then the GCH holds.

The main theorem is that the Ultrafilter Axiom of Woodin :115–37, 2011) must fail at all cardinals where the Axiom I0 holds, in all non-strategic extender models subject only to fairly general requirements on the non-strategic extender model.

One of the most distinctive and intriguing developments of modern set theory has been the realization that, despite widely divergent incentives for strengthening the standard axioms, there is essentially only one way of ascending the higher reaches of infinity. To the mathematical realist the unexpected convergence suggests that all these axiomatic extensions describe different aspects of the same underlying reality.

The Necessary Maximality Principle for c. c. c. forcing with real parameters is equiconsistent with the existence of a weakly compact cardinal. (© 2005 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim).

We consider the possible complexity of the set of reals belonging to an inner model M of set theory. We show that if this set is analytic then either 1M is countable or else all reals are in M. We also show that if an inner model contains a superperfect set of reals as a subset then it contains all reals. On the other hand, it is possible to have an inner model M whose reals are an uncountable Fσ set (...) and which does not have all reals. A similar construction shows that there can be an inner model M which computes correctly 1, contains a perfect set of reals as a subset and yet not all reals are in M. These results were motivated by questions of H. Friedman and K. Prikry. (shrink)

We prove that every countable relation on the enumeration degrees, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} ${\frak E}$\end{document}, is uniformly definable from parameters in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} ${\frak E}$\end{document}. Consequently, the first order theory of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} ${\frak E}$\end{document} is recursively isomorphic to the second order theory of arithmetic. By an effective version of coding lemma, we show that the first order (...) theory of the enumeration degrees of the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $\Sigma^0_2$\end{document} sets is not decidable. (shrink)

We extend work of H. Friedman, L. Harrington and P. Welch to the third level of the projective hierarchy. Our main theorems say that (under appropriate background assumptions) the possibility to select definable elements of non-empty sets of reals at the third level of the projective hierarchy is equivalent to the disjunction of determinacy of games at the second level of the projective hierarchy and the existence of a core model (corresponding to this fragment of determinacy) which must then contain (...) all real numbers. The proofs use Sacks forcing with perfect trees and core model techniques. (shrink)

In 1985 the second author showed that if there is a proper class of measurable Woodin cardinals and $V^{B1} $ and $V^{B2} $ are generic extensions of V satisfying CH then $V^{B1} $ and $V^{B2} $ agree on all $\Sigma _1^2 $ -statements. In terms of the strong logic Ω-logic this can be reformulated by saying that under the above large cardinal assumption ZFC + CH is Ω-complete for $\Sigma _1^2 $ Moreover. CH is the unique $\Sigma _1^2 $ -statement (...) with this feature in the sense that any other $\Sigma _1^2 $ -statement with this feature is Ω-equivalent to CH over ZFC. It is natural to look for other strengthenings of ZFC that have an even greater degree of Ω-completeness. For example, one can ask for recursively enumerable axioms A such that relative to large cardinal axioms ZFC + A is Ω-complete for all of third-order arithmetic. Going further, for each specifiable segment $V_\lambda $ of the universe of sets (for example, one might take $V_\lambda $ to be the least level that satisfies there is a proper class of huge cardinals), one can ask for recursively enumerable axioms A such that relative to large cardinal axioms ZFC + A is Ω-complete for the theory of $V_\lambda $ . If such theories exist, extend one another, and are unique in the sense that any other such theory B with the same level of Ω-completeness as A is actually Ω-equivalent to A over ZFC, then this would show that there is a unique Ω-complete picture of the successive fragments of the universe of sets and it would make for a very strong case for axioms complementing large cardinal axioms. In this paper we show that uniqueness must fail. In particular, we show that if there is one such theory that Ω-implies CH then there is another that Ω-implies¬CH. (shrink)

J. Łoś raised the following question: Under what conditions can a countable partially ordered set be extended to a dense linear order merely by adding instances of comparability ? We show that having such an extension is a Σ 1 l -complete property and so there is no Borel answer to Łoś's question. Additionally, we show that there is a natural Π 1 l -norm on the partial orders which cannot be so extended and calculate some natural ranks in that (...) norm. (shrink)

The HOD Dichotomy Theorem states that if there is an extendible cardinal, δ, then either HOD is “close” to V or HOD is “far” from V. The question is whether the future will lead to the first or the second side of the dichotomy. Is HOD “close” to V, or “far” from V? There is a program aimed at establishing the first alternative—the “close” side of the HOD Dichotomy. This is the program of inner model theory. In recent years the (...) third author has provided evidence that there is an ultimate inner model—Ultimate-L—and he has isolated a natural conjecture associated with the model—the Ultimate-L Conjecture. This conjecture implies that that the first alternative holds—HOD is “close” to V. This is the future in which pattern prevails. In this paper we introduce a very different program, one aimed at establishing the second alternative—the “far” side of the HOD Dichotomy. This is the program of large cardinals beyond choice. Kunen famously showed that if AC holds then there cannot be a Reinhardt cardinal. It has remained open whether Reinhardt cardinals are consistent in ZF alone. It turns out that there is an entire hierarchy of choiceless large cardinals of which Reinhardt cardinals are only the beginning, and, surprisingly, this hierarchy appears to be highly ordered and amenable to systematic investigation, as we shall show in this paper. The point is that if these choiceless large cardinals are consistent then the Ultimate-L Conjecture must fail. This is the future where chaos prevails. (shrink)

We prove the following result which is due to the third author. Let [Formula: see text]. If [Formula: see text] determinacy and [Formula: see text] determinacy both hold true and there is no [Formula: see text]-definable [Formula: see text]-sequence of pairwise distinct reals, then [Formula: see text] exists and is [Formula: see text]-iterable. The proof yields that [Formula: see text] determinacy implies that [Formula: see text] exists and is [Formula: see text]-iterable for all reals [Formula: see text]. A consequence is (...) the Determinacy Transfer Theorem for arbitrary [Formula: see text], namely the statement that [Formula: see text] determinacy implies [Formula: see text] determinacy. (shrink)

We prove the following result which is due to the third author. Let [Formula: see text]. If [Formula: see text] determinacy and [Formula: see text] determinacy both hold true and there is no [Formula: see text]-definable [Formula: see text]-sequence of pairwise distinct reals, then [Formula: see text] exists and is [Formula: see text]-iterable. The proof yields that [Formula: see text] determinacy implies that [Formula: see text] exists and is [Formula: see text]-iterable for all reals [Formula: see text]. A consequence is (...) the Determinacy Transfer Theorem for arbitrary [Formula: see text], namely the statement that [Formula: see text] determinacy implies [Formula: see text] determinacy. (shrink)

'The infinite! No other question has ever moved so profoundly the spirit of man; no other idea has so fruitfully stimulated his intellect; yet no other concept stands in greater need of clarification than that of the infinite.' David Hilbert (1862-1943). This interdisciplinary study of infinity explores the concept through the prism of mathematics and then offers more expansive investigations in areas beyond mathematical boundaries to reflect the broader, deeper implications of infinity for human intellectual thought. More than a dozen (...) world-renowned researchers in the fields of mathematics, physics, cosmology, philosophy, and theology offer a rich intellectual exchange among various current viewpoints, rather than a static picture of accepted views on infinity. The book starts with a historical examination of the transformation of infinity from a philosophical and theological study to one dominated by mathematics. It then offers technical discussions on the understanding of mathematical infinity. Following this, the book considers the perspectives of physics and cosmology: Can infinity be found in the real universe? Finally, the book returns to questions of philosophical and theological aspects of infinity"--Provided by publisher. (shrink)

This volume is based on the talks given at the Workshop on Infinity and Truth held at the Institute for Mathematical Sciences, National University of Singapore, from 25 to 29 July 2011. The chapters are by leading experts in mathematical and philosophical logic that examine various aspects of the foundations of mathematics. The theme of the volume focuses on two basic foundational questions: (i) What is the nature of mathematical truth and how does one resolve questions that are formally unsolvable (...) within the Zermelo Fraenkel Set Theory with the Axiom of Choice, and (ii) Do the discoveries in mathematics provide evidence favoring one philosophical view over others? These issues are discussed from the vantage point of recent progresses in foundational studies. The final chapter features questions proposed by the participants of the Workshop that will drive foundational research. The wide range of topics covered here will be of benefit to students, researchers and mathematicians interested in the foundations of mathematics. (shrink)

This is a review of Marc Lange's _Natural Laws in Scientific Practice<D>.

John Carroll undertakes a careful philosophical examination of laws of nature, causation, and other related topics. He argues that laws of nature are not susceptible to the sort of philosophical treatment preferred by empiricists. Indeed he shows that emperically pure matters of fact need not even determine what the laws are. Similar, even stronger, conclusions are drawn about causation. Replacing the traditional view of laws and causation requiring some kind of foundational legitimacy, the author argues that these phenomena are (...) inextricably intertwined with everything else. This distinctively clear and detailed discussion of what it is to be a law will be valuable to a broad swathe of philosophers in metaphysics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of science. (shrink)

John Carroll undertakes a careful philosophical examination of laws of nature, causation, and other related topics. He argues that laws of nature are not susceptible to the sort of philosophical treatment preferred by empiricists. Indeed he shows that emperically pure matters of fact need not even determine what the laws are. Similar, even stronger, conclusions are drawn about causation. Replacing the traditional view of laws and causation requiring some kind of foundational legitimacy, the author argues that these phenomena are (...) inextricably intertwined with everything else. This distinctively clear and detailed discussion of what it is to be a law will be valuable to a broad swathe of philosophers in metaphysics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of science. (shrink)

Lenn E. Goodman is professor of philosophy and as the Andrew W. Mellon professor in the humanities at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Trained in medieval Arabic and Hebrew philosophy and intellectual history, his prolific scholarship has covered the entire history of philosophy from antiquity to the present with a focus on medieval Jewish philosophy. A synthetic philosopher, Goodman has drawn on Jewish religious sources (e.g., Bible, Midrash, Mishnah, and Talmud) as well as philosophic sources (Jewish, Muslim, and Christian), in (...) an attempt to construct his own distinctive theory about the natural basis of morality and justice. Taking his cue from medieval Jewish philosophers such as Maimonides, Goodman offers a new theoretical framework for Jewish communal life that is attentive to contemporary philosophy and science. (shrink)

This book is an accessible introduction to the central themes of contemporary metaphysics. It carefully considers accounts of causation, freedom and determinism, laws of nature, personal identity, mental states, time, material objects, and properties, while inviting students to reflect on metaphysical problems. The philosophical questions discussed include: What makes it the case that one event causes another event? What are material objects? Given that material objects exist, do such things as properties exist? What makes it the case that a person (...) may exist at two different times? An Introduction to Metaphysics makes these tough questions tractable by presenting the features and flaws of current attempts to answer them. Intended primarily for students taking a first class in metaphysics, this lucid and well-written text would also provide an excellent introduction for anyone interested in knowing more about this important area of philosophy. (shrink)

An argument for realism (i.E., The ontological thesis that there exist universals) has emerged in the writings of david armstrong, Fred dretske, And michael tooley. These authors have persuasively argued against traditional reductive accounts of laws and nature. The failure of traditional reductive accounts leads all three authors to opt for a non-Traditional reductive account of laws which requires the existence of universals. In other words, These authors have opted for accounts of laws which (together with the fact that there (...) are laws) entail that realism is true. This argument for realism which emerges from the work of armstrong, Dretske, And tooley is discussed and criticized. Conclusions from the discussion question the tenability of all reductive accounts of laws. (shrink)