\n \n \n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Erdos-Moser and ISigma_2.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Towsner, H.; and Yokoyama, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n July 2018.\n
draft\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Arxiv\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 14 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@misc{1807.04452,\nauthor = {{Towsner}, H. and {Yokoyama}, K.},\ntitle="{Erdos-Moser and ISigma_2}",\nnote={draft},\nyear=2018,\nmonth=jul,\nurlarxiv={https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.04452},\nabstract={The first-order part of the Ramsey's Theorem for pairs with an arbitrary number of colors is known to be precisely BSigma03. We compare this to the known division of Ramsey's Theorem for pairs into the weaker principles, EM (the Erd\\H{o}s-Moser principle) and ADS (the ascending-descending sequence principle): we show that the additional strength beyond ISigma02 is entirely due to the arbitrary color analog of ADS. \nSpecifically, we show that ADS for an arbitrary number of colors implies BSigma03 while EM for an arbitrary number of colors is Pi11-conservative over ISigma02 and it does not imply ISigma02.}}\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The first-order part of the Ramsey's Theorem for pairs with an arbitrary number of colors is known to be precisely BSigma03. We compare this to the known division of Ramsey's Theorem for pairs into the weaker principles, EM (the Erdős-Moser principle) and ADS (the ascending-descending sequence principle): we show that the additional strength beyond ISigma02 is entirely due to the arbitrary color analog of ADS. Specifically, we show that ADS for an arbitrary number of colors implies BSigma03 while EM for an arbitrary number of colors is Pi11-conservative over ISigma02 and it does not imply ISigma02.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Realism in Mathematics: The Case of the Hyperreals.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Easwaren, K.; and Towsner, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n June 2018.\n
submitted\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Arxiv\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 26 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@misc{EaswarenTowsner,\nauthor = {{Easwaren}, K. and {Towsner}, H.},\ntitle = "{Realism in Mathematics: The Case of the Hyperreals}",\nnote={submitted},\nyear=2018,\nmonth= jun,\nurlarxiv={https://www.dropbox.com/s/vmgevvgmy9bhl2c/Hyperreals.pdf?raw=1},\nabstract={A traditional question in the philosophy of mathematics is whether abstract\nmathematical objects really exist, just as planets and atoms and giraffes do,\nindependently of the human mind. Views on this question are often grouped into\n“platonist”, “nominalist”, and “constructivist” groups depending on whether\nthey state that mathematical objects have their own independent existence, or\ndon’t truly exist at all, or exist but only as constructions of the human mind.\nThis paper will not directly address this question. We expect that to the extent\nthat each of these views is defensible, they will not settle the questions that we\nare interested in (though there may be some affinities between some possible\nanswers to these questions). Rather, we will focus on two other questions of\nmathematical realism: the question of which mathematical claims can be taken\nas meaningful and true within mathematics, and which mathematical ideas can\nbe taken as applying to the physical world as part of a scientific theory.\nWe will focus on these questions for the case of the “hyperreals” of nonstandard\nanalysis, introduced by Abraham Robinson in the 1960’s (which we\nwill describe in greater detail later). Because of their mathematical properties,\nthe hyperreals have attracted attacks and defenses in ways that are uncommon\nfor mathematical entities. Our central claim is that many of the views on both\nsides of these debates conflate two distinct philosophical questions. Defenders\nof the hyperreals give realist answers to both questions, while attackers give\nantirealist answers to both. We defend a realist answer to one question and\nan antirealist answer to the other. We think the distinction between these two\nquestions is important not just for thinking about the hyperreals, but for other\nrelated mathematical entities, and particularly those whose existence depend\non the Axiom of Choice.}\n}\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n A traditional question in the philosophy of mathematics is whether abstract mathematical objects really exist, just as planets and atoms and giraffes do, independently of the human mind. Views on this question are often grouped into “platonist”, “nominalist”, and “constructivist” groups depending on whether they state that mathematical objects have their own independent existence, or don’t truly exist at all, or exist but only as constructions of the human mind. This paper will not directly address this question. We expect that to the extent that each of these views is defensible, they will not settle the questions that we are interested in (though there may be some affinities between some possible answers to these questions). Rather, we will focus on two other questions of mathematical realism: the question of which mathematical claims can be taken as meaningful and true within mathematics, and which mathematical ideas can be taken as applying to the physical world as part of a scientific theory. We will focus on these questions for the case of the “hyperreals” of nonstandard analysis, introduced by Abraham Robinson in the 1960’s (which we will describe in greater detail later). Because of their mathematical properties, the hyperreals have attracted attacks and defenses in ways that are uncommon for mathematical entities. Our central claim is that many of the views on both sides of these debates conflate two distinct philosophical questions. Defenders of the hyperreals give realist answers to both questions, while attackers give antirealist answers to both. We defend a realist answer to one question and an antirealist answer to the other. We think the distinction between these two questions is important not just for thinking about the hyperreals, but for other related mathematical entities, and particularly those whose existence depend on the Axiom of Choice.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n What do ultraproducts remember about the original structures?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Towsner, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n April 2018.\n
draft\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Arxiv\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 36 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@misc{1804.10809,\n author = {{Towsner}, H.},\n title = "{What do ultraproducts remember about the original structures?}",\n note={draft},\n year = 2018,\n month = apr,\nurlarxiv={https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.10809},\nabstract={We describe a syntactic method for taking proofs which use ultraproducts and translating them into direct, constructive proofs.}\n}\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n We describe a syntactic method for taking proofs which use ultraproducts and translating them into direct, constructive proofs.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Explicit sentences distinguishing McDuff's II$_1$ factors.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Goldbring, I.; Hart, B.; and Towsner, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
Israel Journal of Mathematics, 227(1): 365–377. Aug 2018.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Arxiv\n \n \n \n Journal\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{1701.07928,\n author = {I. Goldbring and B. Hart and H. Towsner},\n title = {Explicit sentences distinguishing McDuff's II$\\_1$ factors},\n urlarxiv={https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07928},\n journal={Israel Journal of Mathematics},\n doi = {10.1007/s11856-018-1735-8},\nyear=2018,\nmonth={Aug},\nday=01,\nvolume=227,\nnumber=1,\npages={365--377},\nissn={1565-8511},\nurljournal={https://doi.org/10.1007/s11856-018-1735-8},\n abstract={Recently, Boutonnet, Chifan, and Ioana proved that McDuff's examples of continuum many pairwise non-isomorphic separable $\\Pi_1$ factors are in fact pairwise non-elementarily equivalent. Their proof proceeded by showing that any ultrapowers of any two distinct McDuff examples are not isomorphic. In a paper by the first two authors of this paper, Ehrenfeucht-Fra\\"isse games were used to find an upper bound on the quantifier complexity of sentences distinguishing the McDuff examples, leaving it as an open question to find concrete sentences distinguishing the McDuff factors. In this paper, we answer this question by providing such concrete sentences.}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Recently, Boutonnet, Chifan, and Ioana proved that McDuff's examples of continuum many pairwise non-isomorphic separable $Π_1$ factors are in fact pairwise non-elementarily equivalent. Their proof proceeded by showing that any ultrapowers of any two distinct McDuff examples are not isomorphic. In a paper by the first two authors of this paper, Ehrenfeucht-Fraïsse games were used to find an upper bound on the quantifier complexity of sentences distinguishing the McDuff examples, leaving it as an open question to find concrete sentences distinguishing the McDuff factors. In this paper, we answer this question by providing such concrete sentences.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Relative exchangeability with equivalence relations.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Crane, H.; and Towsner, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
Archive for Mathematical Logic, 57: 533-556. 2018.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Arxiv\n \n \n \n Journal\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 11 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{1605.04484,\nAuthor = {Harry Crane and Henry Towsner},\nTitle = {Relative exchangeability with equivalence relations},\nYear = {2018},\nvolume = {57},\nissue = {5},\npages={533-556},\njournal={Archive for Mathematical Logic},\nEprint = {arXiv:1605.04484},\ndoi = {10.1007/s00153-017-0591-2},\nurlarxiv={http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04484},\nurljournal={http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00153-017-0591-2},\nabstract={We describe an Aldous--Hoover-type characterization of random relational structures that are exchangeable relative to a fixed structure which may have various equivalence relations. Our main theorem gives the common generalization of the results on relative exchangeability due to Ackerman \\cite{Ackerman2015} and Crane and Towsner \\cite{CraneTowsner2015} and hierarchical exchangeability results due to Austin and Panchenko \\cite{AustinPanchenko2014}.\n}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n We describe an Aldous–Hoover-type characterization of random relational structures that are exchangeable relative to a fixed structure which may have various equivalence relations. Our main theorem gives the common generalization of the results on relative exchangeability due to Ackerman i̧teAckerman2015 and Crane and Towsner i̧teCraneTowsner2015 and hierarchical exchangeability results due to Austin and Panchenko i̧teAustinPanchenko2014. \n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Epsilon Substitution for $ID_1$ via Cut-Elimination.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Towsner, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
Archive for Mathematical Logic, 57: 497-531. 2018.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Arxiv\n \n \n \n Journal\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@ARTICLE{towsner15:epsilon_cutelim,\nauthor = {{Towsner}, H.},\ntitle="{Epsilon Substitution for $ID_1$ via Cut-Elimination}",\nyear=2018,\nvolume = {57},\nissue = {5},\npages={497-531},\njournal={Archive for Mathematical Logic},\ndoi = {10.1007/s00153-017-0590-3},\nurlarxiv={http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.00390},\nurljournal={https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00153-017-0590-3},\nabstract={The epsilon-substitution method is a technique for giving consistency proofs for theories of arithmetic. We use this technique to give a proof of the consistency of the impredicative theory ID_1 using a variant of the cut-elimination formalism introduced by Mints.}\n}\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The epsilon-substitution method is a technique for giving consistency proofs for theories of arithmetic. We use this technique to give a proof of the consistency of the impredicative theory ID_1 using a variant of the cut-elimination formalism introduced by Mints.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Relatively exchangeable structures.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Crane, H.; and Towsner, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
Journal of Symbolic Logic, 83(2): 416-442. 2018.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Arxiv\n \n \n \n Journal\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 10 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@ARTICLE{2015arXiv150906733C,\n author = {{Crane}, H. and {Towsner}, H.},\n title = "{Relatively exchangeable structures}",\njournal={Journal of Symbolic Logic},\nyear = 2018,\nvolume={83},\nnumber={2},\npages={416-442},\nurlarxiv={http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06733},\nurljournal={https://doi.org/10.1017/jsl.2017.61},\ndoi={10.1017/jsl.2017.61},\nabstract={We study random relational structures that are \\emph{relatively exchangeable}---that is, whose distributions are invariant under the automorphisms of a reference structure 𝔐. When 𝔐 has <i>trivial definable closure</i>, every relatively exchangeable structure satisfies a general Aldous--Hoover-type representation. If 𝔐 satisfies the stronger properties of <i>ultrahomogeneity</i> and <i>n-disjoint amalgamation property</i> (n-DAP) for every n≥1, then relatively exchangeable structures have a more precise description whereby each component depends locally on 𝔐.},\n}\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n We study random relational structures that are \\emphrelatively exchangeable—that is, whose distributions are invariant under the automorphisms of a reference structure 𝔐. When 𝔐 has trivial definable closure, every relatively exchangeable structure satisfies a general Aldous–Hoover-type representation. If 𝔐 satisfies the stronger properties of ultrahomogeneity and n-disjoint amalgamation property (n-DAP) for every n≥1, then relatively exchangeable structures have a more precise description whereby each component depends locally on 𝔐.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An Inverse Ackermannian Lower Bound on the Local Unconditionality Constant of the James Space.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Towsner, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
Houston Journal of Mathematics, 44: 873–885. August 2018.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Journal\n \n \n \n Arxiv\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 7 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{towsner15:lower_bound_james_space,\n author = {{Towsner}, H.},\n title = "{An Inverse Ackermannian Lower Bound on the Local Unconditionality Constant of the James Space}",\njournal={Houston Journal of Mathematics},\n year = 2018,\n month = aug,\n volume = 44,\n issue = 3,\n pages = {873--885},\n urljournal={https://www.math.uh.edu/~hjm/restricted/pdf44(3)/09towsner.pdf},\n urlarxiv={http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.04745},\n abstract={The proof that the James space is not locally unconditional appears to be non-constructive, since it makes use of an ultraproduct construction. Using proof mining, we extract a constructive proof and obtain a lower bound on the growth of the local unconditionality constants.}\n}\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The proof that the James space is not locally unconditional appears to be non-constructive, since it makes use of an ultraproduct construction. Using proof mining, we extract a constructive proof and obtain a lower bound on the growth of the local unconditionality constants.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An Analytic Approach to Sparse Hypergraphs: Hypergraph Removal.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Towsner, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
Discrete Analysis, (4). 2018.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Arxiv\n \n \n \n Journal\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 16 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{towsner12:_analy_approac_spars_hyper,\n author = \t {Towsner, Henry},\n title = \t {An Analytic Approach to Sparse Hypergraphs: Hypergraph Removal},\n year = \t 2018,\n journal={Discrete Analysis},\n number={4},\nurlarxiv={http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1884},\nurljournal={http://discreteanalysisjournal.com/article/3104-an-analytic-approach-to-sparse-hypergraphs-hypergraph-removal},\nabstract={The use of tools from analysis to approach problems in graph theory has become an active area of research. Usually such methods are applied to problems involving dense graphs and hypergraphs; here we give the an extension of such methods to sparse but pseudorandom hypergraphs. We use this framework to give a proof of hypergraph removal for sub-hypergraphs of sparse random hypergraphs.},\n}\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The use of tools from analysis to approach problems in graph theory has become an active area of research. Usually such methods are applied to problems involving dense graphs and hypergraphs; here we give the an extension of such methods to sparse but pseudorandom hypergraphs. We use this framework to give a proof of hypergraph removal for sub-hypergraphs of sparse random hypergraphs.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n