We will talk about set theory, and, more specifically, forcing. Forcing is powerful. It is the go-to method for proving the independence of the continuum hypothesis or for understanding the (lack of) fine structure of the real numbers. However, forcing is hard. Keen to export their theorems to more mainstream areas of mathematics, set theorists have tackled this issue by inventing forcing axioms, (relatively) simple mathematical statements which describe sophisticated forcing extensions. In my talk, I will present the basics of forcing, I will introduce some interesting forcing axioms and I will show how these might be used to obtain surprising independence results.

# Past Kinderseminar

What does abstract nonsense (category theory) have to do with the apparently opposite proverbial concreteness of physics? In this talk I will try to convey the importance of understanding physical theories from a compositional and structural perspective, where the fundamental logic of interaction between systems becomes the real protagonist. Firstly, we will see how different classes of symmetric monoidal categories can be used to model physical processes in a very natural and intuitive way. We will then explore the claim that category theory is not only useful in providing a unified framework, but it can be also used to perfect and modify preexistent models. In this direction, I will show how the introduction of a trace in the symmetric monoidal category describing QIT can be used to talk about quantum interactions induced by cyclic causal relationships.

Nets of lines are line arrangements satisfying very strict intersection conditions. We will see that nets can be defined in a very natural way in algebraic geometry, and, thanks to the strict intersection properties they satisfy, we will see that a lot can be said about classifying them over the complex numbers. Despite this, there are still basic unanswered questions about nets, which we will discuss.

Fermat’s two-squares theorem is an elementary theorem in number theory that readily lends itself to a classification of the positive integers representable as the sum of two squares. Given this, a natural question is: what is the minimal number of squares needed to represent any given (positive) integer? One proof of Fermat’s result depends on essentially a buffed pigeonhole principle in the form of Minkowski’s Convex Body Theorem, and this idea can be used in a nearly identical fashion to provide 4 as an upper bound to the aforementioned question (this is Lagrange’s four-square theorem). The question of identifying the integers representable as the sum of three squares turns out to be substantially harder, however leaning on a powerful theorem of Dirichlet and a handful of tricks we can use Minkowski’s CBT to settle this final piece as well (this is Legendre’s three-square theorem).

The core idea behind metric spaces is the triangular inequality. Metrics have been generalized in many ways, but the most tempting way to alter them would be to "flip" the triangular inequality, obtaining an "anti-metric". This, however, only allows for trivial spaces where the distance between any two points is 0. However, if we intertwine the concept of antimetrics with the structures of partial linear--and cyclic--orders, we can define a structure where the anti-triangular inequality holds conditionally. We define this structure, give examples, and show an interesting result involving metrics and antimetrics.

In this talk we will introduce quantifier elimination and give various examples of theories with this property. We will see some very useful applications of quantifier elimination to algebra and geometry that will hopefully convince you how practical this property is to other areas of mathematics.

In this talk, we shall introduce various identities among partitions of integers, and how these can be expressed via formal power series. In particular, we shall look at the Rogers Ramanujan identities of power series, and discuss possible combinatorial proofs using partitions and Durfree squares.

In this talk I will introduce Hilbert's 10th Problem (H10) and the model-theoretic notions necessary to explore this problem from the perspective of mathematical logic. I will give a brief history of its proof, talk a little about its connection to decidability and definability, then close by speaking about generalisations of H10 - what has been proven and what has yet to be discovered.

The “field with one element” is an interesting algebraic object that in some sense relates linear algebra with set theory. In a much deeper vein it is also expected to have a role in algebraic geometry that could potentially “lift" Deligne’s proof of the final Weil Conjecture for varieties over finite fields to a proof of the Riemann hypothesis for the Riemann zeta function. The only problem is that it doesn’t exist. In this highly speculative talk I will discuss some of these concepts, and focus mainly on zeta functions of algebraic varieties over finite fields. I will give a (very) brief sketch of how to interpret various zeta functions in a geometric context, and try to explain what goes wrong for the Riemann zeta function that makes this a difficult problem.

I was speak on the way Newton carries out his calculus in the Principia in the framework of classical geometry rather than with fluxions, his deficiencies, and the relation of this work to inverse-square laws.