In this talk, I will explain a new wall-crossing phenomenon on P^3 that induces non-Q-factorial singularities and thus cannot be understood as an operation in the MMP of the moduli space, unlike the case for many surfaces.  If time permits, I will explain how the wall-crossing could help to understand the geometry of the associated Hilbert scheme and PT moduli space.

Forcing axioms state that the universe inherits certain properties of generic extensions for a given class of forcings. They are usually formulated via the existence of filters, but several alternative characterisations are known. For instance, Bagaria (2000) characterised some forcing axioms via generic absoluteness for objects of size $\omega_1$. In a related new approach, we consider principles stating the existence of filters that induce correct evaluations of sufficiently simple names in prescribed ways. For example, for the properties ‘nonempty’ or ‘unbounded in $\omega_1$’, consider the principle: whenever this property is forced for a given sufficiently simple name, then there exists a filter inducing an evaluation with the same property. This class of principles turns out to be surprisingly general: we will see how to characterise most known forcing axioms, but also some combinatorial principles that are not known to be equivalent to forcing axioms. This is recent joint work in progress with Christopher Turner.

Leibniz’s principle of identity of indiscernibles at first sight appears completely unrelated to set theory, but Mycielski (1995) formulated a set-theoretic axiom nowadays referred to as LM (for Leibniz-Mycielski) which captures the spirit of Leibniz’s dictum in the following sense:  LM holds in a model M of ZF iff M is elementarily equivalent to a model M* in which there is no pair of indiscernibles.  LM was further investigated in a 2004  paper of mine, which includes a proof that LM is equivalent to the global form of the Kinna-Wagner selection principle in set theory.  On the other hand, one can formulate a strong negation of Leibniz’s principle by first adding a unary predicate I(x) to the usual language of set theory, and then augmenting ZF with a scheme that ensures that I(x) describes a proper class of indiscernibles, thus giving rise to an extension ZFI of ZF that I showed (2005) to be intimately related to Mahlo cardinals of finite order. In this talk I will give an expository account of the above and related results that attest to a lively interaction between set theory and Leibniz’s principle of identity of indiscernibles.

Set theory exhibits a truly robust mutual interpretability phenomenon: in any model of one set theory we can define models of diverse other set theories and vice versa. In any model of ZFC, we can define models of ZFC + GCH and also of ZFC + ¬CH and so on in hundreds of cases. And yet, it turns out, in no instance do these mutual interpretations rise to the level of bi-interpretation. Ali Enayat proved that distinct theories extending ZF are never bi-interpretable, and models of ZF are bi-interpretable only when they are isomorphic. So there is no nontrivial bi-interpretation phenomenon in set theory at the level of ZF or above.  Nevertheless, for natural weaker set theories, we prove, including ZFC- without power set and Zermelo set theory Z, there are nontrivial instances of bi-interpretation. Specifically, there are well-founded models of ZFC- that are bi-interpretable, but not isomorphic—even $\langle H_{\omega_1}, \in \rangle$ and $\langle H_{\omega_2}, \in \rangle$ can be bi-interpretable—and there are distinct bi-interpretable theories extending 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. This is joint work with Alfredo Roque Freire.

Ideas from physics have predicted a number of important properties of random constraint satisfaction problems such as the satisfiability threshold and the free energy (the exponential growth rate of the number of solutions). Another prediction is the condensation regime where most of the solutions are contained in a small number of clusters and the overlap of two random solutions is concentrated on two points. We establish this phenomena in the random regular NAESAT model. Joint work with Danny Nam and Youngtak Sohn.

What is the connection between phase transitions in statistical physics and the computational tractability of approximate counting and sampling? There are many fascinating answers to this question but many mysteries remain. I will discuss one particular type of a phase transition: the first-order phase in the Potts model on $\mathbb{Z}^d$ for large $q$, and show how tools used to analyze the phase transition can be turned into efficient algorithms at the critical temperature. In the other direction, I'll discuss how the algorithmic perspective can help us understand phase transitions.

Active matter describes ensembles of self-organizing agents, or particles, interacting with their local environments so that their micro-scale behavior determines macro-scale characteristics of the ensemble. While there has been a surge of activity exploring the physics underlying such systems, less attention has been paid to questions of how to program them to achieve desired outcomes. We will present some recent results designing programmable active matter for specific tasks, including aggregation, dispersion, speciation, and locomotion, building on insights from stochastic algorithms and statistical physics.

Let $X_1, \ldots$ be i.i.d. copies of some real random variable $X$. For any $\varepsilon_2, \varepsilon_3, \ldots$ in $\{0,1\}$, a basic algorithm introduced by H.A. Simon yields a reinforced sequence $\hat{X}_1, \hat{X}_2, \ldots$ as follows. If $\varepsilon_n=0$, then $\hat{X}_n$ is a uniform random sample from $\hat{X}_1, …, \hat{X}_{n-1}$; otherwise $\hat{X}_n$ is a new independent copy of $X$. The purpose of this talk is to compare the scaling exponent of the usual random walk $S(n)=X_1 +\ldots + X_n$ with that of its step reinforced version $\hat{S}(n)=\hat{X}_1+\ldots + \hat{X}_n$. Depending on the tail of $X$ and on asymptotic behavior of the sequence $\varepsilon_j$, we show that step reinforcement may speed up the walk, or at the contrary slow it down, or also does not affect the scaling exponent at all. Our motivation partly stems from the study of random walks with memory, notably the so-called elephant random walk and its variations.

We say that a graph $G$ is $H$-free if $G$ does not contain $H$ as a (not necessarily induced) subgraph. For a positive integer $n$, denote by $\text{ex}(n,H)$ the largest number of edges in an $H$-free graph with $n$ vertices (the Turán number of $H$). The classical theorem of Erdős, Kleitman, and Rothschild states that, for every $r\geq3$, there are $2^{\text{ex}(n,H)+o(n2)}$ many $K_r$-free graphs with vertex set $\{1,…, n\}$. There exist (at least) three different derivations of this estimate in the literature: an inductive argument based on the Kővári-Sós-Turán theorem (and its generalisation to hypergraphs due to Erdős), a proof based on Szemerédi's regularity lemma, and an argument based on the hypergraph container theorems. In this talk, we present yet another proof of this bound that exploits connections between entropy and independence. This argument is an adaptation of a method developed in a joint work with Gady Kozma, Tom Meyerovitch, and Ron Peled that studied random metric spaces.

We study the following question at the intersection of extremal and structural graph theory. Given a fixed graph $H$ that embeds in a fixed surface $\Sigma$, what is the maximum number of copies of $H$ in an $n$-vertex graph that embeds in $\Sigma$? Exact answers to this question are known for specific graphs $H$ when $\Sigma$ is the sphere. We aim for more general, albeit less precise, results. We show that the answer to the above question is $\Theta(nf(H))$, where $f(H)$ is a graph invariant called the `flap-number' of $H$, which is independent of $\Sigma$. This simultaneously answers two open problems posed by Eppstein (1993). When $H$ is a complete graph we give more precise answers. This is joint work with Tony Huynh and Gwenaël Joret [https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.13777]