bio | website | math.berkeley.edu/~sramesh |
---|---|---|
location | Berkeley, CA | |
age | 28 | |
visits | member for | 4 years, 2 months |
seen | Apr 13 at 20:50 | |
stats | profile views | 3,364 |
I am a graduate student in the Logic program at Berkeley, broadly interested in categorical logic and foundations of mathematics, as well as in applications of category theory to the semantics of programming languages.
Feb 8 |
awarded | Yearling |
Jan 29 |
awarded | Notable Question |
Jan 17 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Oct 11 |
awarded | Caucus |
Sep 17 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Jun 25 |
awarded | Excavator |
Jun 25 |
awarded | Pundit |
May 24 |
comment |
Avoiding reflexive paradox in set theory
Richard, you are coming now quite close to a principle like "Sets are given by well-founded comprehension"; this is the spirit behind ZF, and once you have that, the rest of its axioms are not far behind [you'll find that the existence of infinite sets, powersets, etc., are not automatically assured, and you may want to assure them]. |
Mar 29 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Mar 1 |
awarded | Popular Question |
Feb 10 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Feb 8 |
awarded | Yearling |
Dec 1 |
comment |
Application of polynomials with non-negative coefficients
Surely, the thing to do is to use q = p(1) + 1 rather than q = p(1), so as not to have to treat the case p(q) = q^n on an ad hoc basis. |
Nov 19 |
revised |
Proof without words for surface area of a sphere
added 126 characters in body |
Nov 19 |
revised |
Proof without words for surface area of a sphere
edited body |
Nov 19 |
revised |
Proof without words for surface area of a sphere
added 43 characters in body |
Nov 19 |
answered | Proof without words for surface area of a sphere |
Nov 18 |
comment |
There are two points on the Earth's surface that … ?
What does "separated by the same geodesic distance" mean for two points? |
Nov 17 |
comment |
Tarski's Theorem and Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem
Well, one caveat: One needs that Tarski's result is constructive enough that we have not just "For every T, for every model, there is a G such that...", but in fact "For every T, there is a G such that for every model...". But, basically, were Tarski's result phrased as strongly as its proof actually warranted, it would give us everything. |
Nov 17 |
comment |
Tarski's Theorem and Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem
I've modified the word of the second paragraph to alleviate this concern. The second incompleteness theorem follows from the simultaneous "external" and "internal" truth of Tarski's theorem (by which I mean, the fact that Tarski's theorem is both true and provable (or, just as well, true inside every model)). |