In this paper, we consider a notion of nonmeasurablity with respect to Marczewski and Marczewski-like tree ideals $s_0$ , $m_0$ , $l_0$ , $cl_0$ , $h_0,$ and $ch_0$ . We show that there exists a subset of the Baire space $\omega ^\omega ,$ which is s-, l-, and m-nonmeasurable that forms a dominating m.e.d. family. We investigate a notion of ${\mathbb {T}}$ -Bernstein sets—sets which intersect but do not contain any body of any tree from a given family of trees ${\mathbb {T}}$ . We also obtain a result on ${\mathcal {I}}$ -Luzin sets, namely, we prove that if ${\mathfrak {c}}$ is a regular cardinal, then the algebraic sum (considered on the real line ${\mathbb {R}}$ ) of a generalized Luzin set and a generalized Sierpiński set belongs to $s_0, m_0$ , $l_0,$ and $cl_0$ .

We discuss the close relationship between structural theorems in (generalized) stability theory, and graph regularity theorems.

This paper reconstructs Steel’s multiverse project in his ‘Gödel’s program’ (Steel, 2014), first by comparing it to those of Hamkins (2012) and Woodin (2011), then by detailed analysis what’s presented in Steel’s brief text. In particular, we reconstruct his notion of a ‘natural’ theory, describe his multiverse axioms and his translation function, and assess the resulting status of the Continuum Hypothesis. In the end, we reconceptualize the defect that Steel thinks $CH$ might suffer from and isolate what it would take to remove it while working within his framework. As our goal is to present as coherent and compelling a philosophical and mathematical story as we can, we allow ourselves to augment Steel’s story in places (e.g., in the treatment of Amalgamation) and to depart from it in others (e.g., the removal of ‘meaning’ from the account). The relevant mathematics is laid out in the appendices.

Mauldin [15] proved that there is an analytic set, which cannot be represented by $B\cup X$ for some Borel set B and a subset X of a $\boldsymbol{\Sigma }^0_2$ -null set, answering a question by Johnson [10]. We reprove Mauldin’s answer by a recursion-theoretical method. We also give a characterization of the Borel generated $\sigma $ -ideals having approximation property under the assumption that every real is constructible, answering Mauldin’s question raised in [15].

We give an exposition of the compactness of $L({Q^{\mathrm{\,cf}}\!\!\!\!\!\!}_{C})$ , for any set C of regular cardinals.

In 1932, von Neumann proposed classifying the statistical behavior of differentiable systems. Joint work of B. Weiss and the author proved that the classification problem is complete analytic. Based on techniques in that proof, one is able to show that the collection of recursive diffeomorphisms of the 2-torus that are isomorphic to their inverses is $\Pi ^0_1$-hard via a computable 1-1 reduction. As a corollary there is a diffeomorphism that is isomorphic to its inverse if and only if the Riemann Hypothesis holds, a different one that is isomorphic to its inverse if and only if Goldbach’s conjecture holds and so forth. Applying the reduction to the $\Pi ^0_1$-sentence expressing “ZFC is consistent” gives a diffeomorphism T of the 2-torus such that the question of whether $T\cong T^{-1}$ is independent of ZFC.

Hermann Weyl was one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, with contributions to many branches of mathematics and physics. In 1918, he wrote a famous book, “Das Kontinuum”, on the foundations of mathematics. In that book, he described mathematical analysis as a ‘house built on sand’, and tried to ‘replace this shifting foundation with pillars of enduring strength’.

In this paper, we reexamine and explain the philosophical and mathematical ideas that underly Weyl’s system in “Das Kontinuum”, and show that they are still useful and relevant. We propose a precise formalization of that system, which is the first to be completely faithful to what is written in the book. Finally, we suggest that a certain set-theoretical modern system reflects better Weyl’s ideas than previous attempts (most notably by Feferman) of achieving this goal.

A cornerstone of modern mathematical logic is the diagonal lemma of Gödel and Carnap. It is used in, for example, the classical proofs of the theorems of Gödel, Rosser, and Tarski. From its first explication in 1934, just essentially one proof has appeared for the diagonal lemma in the literature; a proof that is so tricky and hard to relate that many authors have tried to avoid the lemma altogether. As a result, some so-called diagonal-free proofs have been given for the above-mentioned fundamental theorems of logic. In this paper, we provide new proofs for the semantic formulation of the diagonal lemma, and for a weak version of the syntactic formulation of it.

We prove a number of elementary facts about computability in partial combinatory algebras (pca’s). We disprove a suggestion made by Kreisel about using Friedberg numberings to construct extensional pca’s. We then discuss separability and elements without total extensions. We relate this to Ershov’s notion of precompleteness, and we show that precomplete numberings are not 1–1 in general.

The proofs of Gödel (1931), Rosser (1936), Kleene (first 1936 and second 1950), Chaitin (1970), and Boolos (1989) for the first incompleteness theorem are compared with each other, especially from the viewpoint of the second incompleteness theorem. It is shown that Gödel’s (first incompleteness theorem) and Kleene’s first theorems are equivalent with the second incompleteness theorem, Rosser’s and Kleene’s second theorems do deliver the second incompleteness theorem, and Boolos’ theorem is derived from the second incompleteness theorem in the standard way. It is also shown that none of Rosser’s, Kleene’s second, or Boolos’ theorems is equivalent with the second incompleteness theorem, and Chaitin’s incompleteness theorem neither delivers nor is derived from the second incompleteness theorem. We compare (the strength of) these six proofs with one another.

It is well-known that an element of a commutative ring with identity is nilpotent if, and only if , it lies in every prime ideal of the ring. A modification of this fact is amenable to a very simple proof mining analysis. We formulate a quantitative version of this modification and obtain an explicit bound. We present an application. This proof mining analysis is the leitmotif for some comments and observations on the methodology of computational extraction. In particular, we emphasize that the formulation of quantitative versions of ordinary mathematical theorems is of independent interest from proof mining metatheorems.