bio | website | math.berkeley.edu/~sramesh |
---|---|---|
location | Berkeley, CA | |
age | 30 | |
visits | member for | 5 years, 5 months |
seen | 18 hours ago | |
stats | profile views | 3,868 |
I was 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. I work for Google now.
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)). |
Nov 17 |
revised |
Tarski's Theorem and Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem
added 56 characters in body |
Nov 17 |
revised |
Tarski's Theorem and Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem
added 67 characters in body; added 32 characters in body |
Nov 17 |
answered | Tarski's Theorem and Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem |
Nov 2 |
comment |
Entailment and implication
It's also worth noting that the trivial topos, like all toposes, internally considers itself to be non-trivial. It just happens to also consider itself to be trivial... |
Nov 2 |
comment |
Entailment and implication
In the internal logic of the trivial topos, "there is no rational square root of two" is true. It's just that "there is a rational square root of two" is also true. The internal logic of the trivial topos happens to validate all statements; that's what makes it so trivial. But it also means it doesn't harm anything, or make any difference to the model-theoretically valid statements, to consider it a legitimate model. |
Oct 21 |
comment |
Properly “transfinitely” Euclidean domains
I don't think the omnific integers can admit an ordinal-valued (as opposed to omnific integer-valued) Euclidean function; an ordinal-valued Euclidean function should still lead to being a unique factorization domain, in the usual way, but the omnific integers lack unique factorization (e.g., 2, 3, 5, 7, ..., all remain prime, but $\omega$ is divisible by all infinitely many of them). |