A link for this talk will be sent to our mailing list a day or two in advance.  If you are not on the list and wish to be sent a link, please send email to @email.

An inner model is a ground if V is a set forcing extension of it. The intersection of the grounds is the mantle, an inner model of ZFC which enjoys many nice properties. Fuchs, Hamkins, and Reitz showed that the mantle is highly malleable. Namely, they showed that every model of set theory is the mantle of a bigger, better universe of sets. This then raises the possibility of iterating the definition of the mantle—the mantle, the mantle of the mantle, and so on, taking intersections at limit stages—to obtain even deeper inner models. Let’s call the inner models in this sequence the inner mantles.

In this talk I will present some results, both positive and negative, about the sequence of inner mantles, answering some questions of Fuchs, Hamkins, and Reitz, results which are analogues of classic results about the sequence of iterated HODs. On the positive side: (Joint with Reitz) Every model of set theory is the eta-th inner mantle of a class forcing extension for any ordinal eta in the model. On the negative side: The sequence of inner mantles may fail to carry through at limit stages. Specifically, it is consistent that the omega-th inner mantle not be a definable class and it is consistent that it be a definable inner model of ¬AC.

The Burali-Forti paradox suggests that the transfinite cardinals “go on forever,” surpassing any conceivable bound one might try to place on them. The traditional Zermelo-Frankel axioms for set theory fall into a hierarchy of axiomatic systems formulated by reasserting this intuition in increasingly elaborate ways: the large cardinal hierarchy. Or so the story goes. A serious problem for this already naive account of large cardinal set theory is the Kunen inconsistency theorem, which seems to impose an upper bound on the extent of the large cardinal hierarchy itself. If one drops the Axiom of Choice, Kunen’s proof breaks down and a new hierarchy of choiceless large cardinal axioms emerges. These axioms, if consistent, represent a challenge for those “maximalist” foundational stances that take for granted both large cardinal axioms and the Axiom of Choice. This talk concerns some recent advances in our understanding of the weakest of the choiceless large cardinal axioms and the prospect, as yet unrealized, of establishing their consistency and reconciling them with the Axiom of Choice.

Aronszajn trees are a staple of set theory, but there are applications where the requirement of all levels being countable is of no importance. This is the case in set-theoretic model theory, where trees of height and size ω1 but with no uncountable branches play an important role by being clocks of Ehrenfeucht–Fraïssé games that measure similarity of model of size ℵ1. We call such trees wide Aronszajn. In this context one can also compare trees T and T’ by saying that T weakly embeds into T’ if there is a function f that map T into T’ while preserving the strict order <_T. This order translates into the comparison of winning strategies for the isomorphism player, where any winning strategy for T’ translates into a winning strategy for T’. Hence it is natural to ask if there is a largest such tree, or as we would say, a universal tree for the class of wood Aronszajn trees with weak embeddings. It was known that there is no such a tree under CH, but in 1994 Mekler and Väänanen conjectured that there would be under MA(ω1).

In our upcoming JSL  paper with Saharon Shelah we prove that this is not the case: under MA(ω1) there is no universal wide Aronszajn tree.

The talk will discuss that paper. The paper is available on the arxiv and on line at JSL in the preproof version doi: 10.1017/jsl.2020.42.

I plan to survey known facts and open questions about ultrafilters on omega generating (or not generating) ultrafilters in forcing extensions.

Preconditioning techniques are widely used for speeding up the iterative solution of systems of linear equations, often by transforming the system into one with lower condition number. Even though the condition number also serves as the determining constant in simple bounds for the numerical error of the solution, simple experiments and bounds show that such preconditioning on the matrix level is not guaranteed to reduce this error. Transformations on the operator level, on the other hand, improve both accuracy and speed of iterative methods as predicted by the change of the condition number. We propose to investigate such methods under a common framework, which we call full operator preconditioning, and show practical examples.

A link for this talk will be sent to our mailing list a day or two in advance.  If you are not on the list and wish to be sent a link, please send an email to @email.

This talk will focus on the following two related problems:
    (1) What is the minimum number of edges in a graph containing all $n$-vertex planar graphs as subgraphs? A simple construction of Babai, Erdos, Chung, Graham, and Spencer (1982) has $O(n^{3/2})$ edges, which is the best known upper bound.
    (2) What is the minimum number of *vertices* in a graph containing all $n$-vertex planar graphs as *induced* subgraphs? Here steady progress has been achieved over the years, culminating in a $O(n^{4/3})$ bound due to Bonamy, Gavoille, and Pilipczuk (2019).
    As it turns out, a bound of $n^{1+o(1)}$ can be achieved for each of these two problems. The two constructions are somewhat different but are based on a common technique. In this talk I will first give a gentle introduction to the area and then sketch these constructions. The talk is based on joint works with Vida Dujmović, Louis Esperet, Cyril Gavoille, Piotr Micek, and Pat Morin.

What is fairness, and to what extent is it practically achievable? I'll talk about a simple mathematical model under which one might hope to understand such questions. Red and blue points occur as independent homogeneous Poisson processes of equal intensity in Euclidean space, and we try to match them to each other. We would like to minimize the sum of a some function (say, a power, $\gamma$) of the distances between matched pairs. This does not make sense, because the sum is infinite, so instead we satisfy ourselves with minimizing *locally*. If the points are interpreted as agents who would like to be matched as close as possible, the parameter $\gamma$ encodes a measure of fairness - large $\gamma$ means that we try to avoid occasional very bad outcomes (long edges), even if that means inconvenience to others - small $\gamma$ means everyone is in it for themselves.
    In dimension 1 we have a reasonably complete picture, with a phase transition at $\gamma=1$. For $\gamma<1$ there is a unique minimal matching, while for $\gamma>1$ there are multiple matchings but no stationary solution. In higher dimensions, even existence is not clear in all cases.

A spanning tree of $G$ is a subgraph of $G$ with the same vertex set as $G$ that is a tree. In 1981, McKay proved an asymptotic result regarding the number of spanning trees in random $k$-regular graphs, showing that the number of spanning trees $\kappa_1(G_n)$ in a random $k$-regular graph on $n$ vertices satisfies $\lim_{n \to \infty} (\kappa_1(G_n))^{1/n} = c_{1,k}$ in probability, where $c_{1,k} = (k-1)^{k-1} (k^2-2k)^{-(k-2)/2}$.

In this talk we will discuss a high-dimensional of the matching model for simplicial complexes, known as random Steiner complexes. In particular, we will prove a high-dimensional counterpart of McKay's result and discuss the local limit of such random complexes. 
Based on a joint work with Lior Tenenbaum.