Henry Towsner

Also lots of random interruptions to monologue about their character's backstory.

The four year old persuaded me to run a D&D module for them as a 'choose your own adventure' type game.

They proceeded to ignore every plot hook but found a random NPC and decided they were best friends now. Clearly a natural gamer.

You can sort of see how he might have mangled the studies that are out there into this - Pew says the median number of close friends is between 3 and 4 (www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...) though other studies (journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...) report higher numbers.

As someone who’s definitely used that example, I’m curious why. (Especially why one would prefer forcing CH when that’s not needed to establish the consistency of CH, and historically not how it was first established.)

It’s only on the faculty listserv if it’s actually on the listserv. This is just sparkling reply all rants.

There are lots of models of V=L; CH is true in all of them. If you’re sitting in some fixed universe of ZFC, there’s a single L which is the unique constructible inner model of this model. But there are other models of ZFC, and they have their own versions of L. (All satisfying CH.)

I think the uniqueness you’re thinking of says that *given a particular model V of ZFC* there’s a unique inner model of V=L. But there are many different models of ZFC which give rise to different versions of L.

It definitely doesn’t have only one model. For instance, it has nonstandard models which contain ill-founded sets (which the model doesn’t know are ill-founded); in some cases, those ill-founded sets appear in the model to be nonstandard proofs of the sentence you asked about.

Relatedly, being in the model L isn’t really significant here; arithmetic facts like probability are absolute between inner models - whatever your model of V, the corresponding of model of L will agree about which things are provable.

True, because it’s indeed not provably. (And, relatedly, not provably so from ZFC+V=L.)

Canvas has a systematic hostility to labeling things accurately that seems too consistent to be an accident.

There’s a specific sense of dread that comes with picking your child up from preschool and seeing that a third of the class didn’t show up today.

I’ve been using Mileti’s new-ish book, which I think is pitched similarly to Mileti, but isn’t quite as concise, and has a bit more optional material on more advanced topics.

Math papers vary between these two conventions, and the economics one seems much better to me: when you encounter a technical term somewhere in the middle of the paper, you know where to flip to, instead of having to search for the first use. (Who reads papers in linear order anyway?)

Coba Coba is a creature in the special, The Octonauts and the Caves of Sac Actun. Coba is a little octopus. Captain Barnacles and Peso need to bring him back to his home in the Caribbean Sea. After failing...

It was initially a baby octopus, but then later a baby axolotl. (It turns out to be a reference to octonauts.fandom.com/wiki/Coba.)

Playing “the zoo game” with four kids 3-6. One wants constant attention for how scary their animal is, one wants constant attention for how pretty their animal is, one wants to sit in a corner loudly saying ‘Gooba’ nonstop, and one just wants to lick everything.

This is vampire larp all over again.

Finally coming around to constructivism?

That truck is fantastic.

The answer, which maybe I should have guessed, is that these are exactly de Bruijn indices described differently.

Has anyone seen a syntax in which free variables can be "protected" from binders, so that binding a protected copy of a free variable strips off a layer of protection (so a further binder can now bind it) without binding the variable?

My current pet peeve is the use of “syllabus” like it has a clear, field independent meaning.

Is my policy on food in the classroom actually what’s needed to decide about transfer credit, or is there some other piece of information being sought that could be specifically named?

I have a guess what the quote was; I think I meant something about what we knew at the time, not a general statement about what could be done. It sounds like they've figured out a way to see stronger mixing assumptions in pointwise behavior, which sounds interesting. I look forward to reading it.

Fair enough! I'm really enjoying this summary of the session, especially since I'm pretty out of touch with what's going on in algorithmic randomness these days.

I did?

Which students should? Students studying proof theory, certainly, but a lot more students take introductory logic courses where they need to see *a* formal proof system, but it’s certainly not a given that they need to see many calculi.

Have you considered just being tired all the time?

You seem like a reasonable person, so I just assumed you would be.

I admit I have difficulty imagine what an argument for teaching Hilbert systems would even look like.

For the former, the answer is that you need them to make angel cookies

There are so many books about how meaningful writing is, and songs about the power of music, but somehow math about math is always about what math *can't* do.