Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Joel David Hamkins is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Joel David Hamkins.


Journal of Symbolic Logic | 2000

Infinite Time Turing Machines

Joel David Hamkins; Andy Lewis

We extend in a natural way the operation of Turing machines to infinite ordinal time, and investigate the resulting supertask theory of computability and decidability on the reals. Every set. for example, is decidable by such machines, and the semi-decidable sets form a portion of the sets. Our oracle concept leads to a notion of relative computability for sets of reals and a rich degree structure, stratified by two natural jump operators.


Annals of Pure and Applied Logic | 2000

The lottery preparation

Joel David Hamkins

Abstract The lottery preparation, a new general kind of Laver preparation, works uniformly with supercompact cardinals, strongly compact cardinals, strong cardinals, measurable cardinals, or what have you. And like the Laver preparation, the lottery preparation makes these cardinals indestructible by various kinds of further forcing. A supercompact cardinal κ , for example, becomes fully indestructible by -directed closed forcing; a strong cardinal κ becomes indestructible by ⩽κ -strategically closed forcing; and a strongly compact cardinal κ becomes indestructible by, among others, the forcing to add a Cohen subset to κ , the forcing to shoot a club C⊆κ avoiding the measurable cardinals and the forcing to add various long Prikry sequences. The lottery preparation works best when performed after fast function forcing, which adds a new completely general kind of Laver function for any large cardinal, thereby freeing the Laver function concept from the supercompact cardinal context.


Fundamenta Mathematicae | 2003

Extensions with the approximation and cover properties have no new large cardinals

Joel David Hamkins

If an extension Vbar of V satisfies the delta approximation and cover properties for classes and V is a class in Vbar, then every suitably closed embedding j:Vbar to Nbar in Vbar with critical point above delta restricts to an embedding j|V:V to N amenable to the ground model V. In such extensions, therefore, there are no new large cardinals above delta. This result extends work in math.LO/9808011.


The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic | 1999

Gap Forcing: Generalizing the Lévy-Solovay Theorem

Joel David Hamkins

The Levy-Solovay Theorem[8] limits the kind of large cardinal embeddings that can exist in a small forcing extension. Here I announce a generalization of this theorem to a broad new class of forcing notions. One consequence is that many of the forcing iterations most commonly found in the large cardinal literature create no new weakly compact cardinals, measurable cardinals, strong cardinals, Woodin cardinals, strongly compact cardinals, supercompact cardinals, almost huge cardinals, huge cardinals, and so on.


Review of Symbolic Logic | 2012

THE SET-THEORETIC MULTIVERSE

Joel David Hamkins

The multiverse view in set theory, introduced and argued for in this article, is the view that there are many distinct concepts of set, each instantiated in a corresponding set-theoretic universe. The universe view, in contrast, asserts that there is an absolute background set concept, with a corre- sponding absolute set-theoretic universe in which every set-theoretic question has a definite answer. The multiverse position, I argue, explains our expe- rience with the enormous range of set-theoretic possibilities, a phenomenon that challenges the universe view. In particular, I argue that the continuum hypothesis is settled on the multiverse view by our extensive knowledge about how it behaves in the multiverse, and as a result it can no longer be settled in the manner formerly hoped for.


Annals of Pure and Applied Logic | 2015

SET-THEORETIC GEOLOGY

Gunter Fuchs; Joel David Hamkins; Jonas Reitz

Abstract A ground of the universe V is a transitive proper class W ⊆ V , such that W ⊨ ZFC and V is obtained by set forcing over W, so that V = W [ G ] for some W-generic filter G ⊆ P ∈ W . The model V satisfies the ground axiom GA if there are no such W properly contained in V. The model W is a bedrock of V if W is a ground of V and satisfies the ground axiom. The mantle of V is the intersection of all grounds of V. The generic mantle of V is the intersection of all grounds of all set-forcing extensions of V. The generic HOD, written gHOD, is the intersection of all HODs of all set-forcing extensions. The generic HOD is always a model of ZFC, and the generic mantle is always a model of ZF. Every model of ZFC is the mantle and generic mantle of another model of ZFC. We prove this theorem while also controlling the HOD of the final model, as well as the generic HOD. Iteratively taking the mantle penetrates down through the inner mantles to what we call the outer core, what remains when all outer layers of forcing have been stripped away. Many fundamental questions remain open.


arXiv: Logic | 2000

Small forcing creates neither strong nor Woodin cardinals

W. H. Woodin; Joel David Hamkins

After small forcing, almost every strongness embedding is the lift of a strongness embedding in the ground model. Consequently, small forcing creates neither strong nor Woodin cardinals.


Archive for Mathematical Logic | 2002

Post's problem for supertasks has both positive and negative solutions

Joel David Hamkins; Andy Lewis

Abstract. The infinite time Turing machine analogue of Posts problem, the question whether there are semi-decidable supertask degrees between 0 and the supertask jump 0∇, has in a sense both positive and negative solutions. Namely, in the context of the reals there are no degrees between 0 and 0∇, but in the context of sets of reals, there are; indeed, there are incomparable semi-decidable supertask degrees. Both arguments employ a kind of transfinite-injury construction which generalizes canonically to oracles.


Mathematical Logic Quarterly | 2001

Infinite Time Turing Machines With Only One Tape

Joel David Hamkins; Daniel Evan Seabold

Infinite time Turing machines with only one tape are in many respects fully as powerful as their multi-tape cousins. In particular, the two models of machine give rise to the same class of decidable sets, the same degree structure and, at least for partial functions f : ℝ ℕ, the same class of computable functions. Nevertheless, there are infinite time computable functions f : ℝ ℝ that are not one-tape computable, and so the two models of infinitary computation are not equivalent. Surprisingly, the class of one-tape computable functions is not closed under composition; but closing it under composition yields the full class of all infinite time computable functions. Finally, every ordinal that is clockable by an infinite time Turing machine is clockable by a one-tape machine, except certain isolated ordinals that end gaps in the clockable ordinals.


Journal of Symbolic Logic | 1998

Small Forcing Makes any Cardinal Superdestructible

Joel David Hamkins

Small forcing always ruins the indestructibility of an indestructible supercompact cardinal. In fact, after small forcing, any cardinal

Collaboration


Dive into the Joel David Hamkins's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Victoria Gitman

City University of New York

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Gunter Fuchs

College of Staten Island

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jonas Reitz

New York City College of Technology

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Thomas A. Johnstone

New York City College of Technology

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Noam Greenberg

Victoria University of Wellington

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

W. Hugh Woodin

University of California

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Barbara Montero

City University of New York

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge