bio | website | math.berkeley.edu/~sramesh |
---|---|---|
location | Berkeley, CA | |
age | 30 | |
visits | member for | 5 years, 6 months |
seen | yesterday | |
stats | profile views | 3,918 |
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.
Aug
31 |
comment |
Intuitionistic consistency of surjection from naturals to reals
Ah, I was right to be unconvinced by my self-convincing, then... :) |
Aug
31 |
revised |
Intuitionistic consistency of surjection from naturals to reals
deleted 1 characters in body |
Aug
31 |
asked | Intuitionistic consistency of surjection from naturals to reals |
Aug
15 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Aug
2 |
comment |
Are all the theorems true?
(I suppose I should point out, in case you are not aware, that the reason ZFC + "ZFC is inconsistent" is equiconsistent with ZFC is because of Goedel's second incompleteness theorem) |
Aug
2 |
comment |
Are all the theorems true?
The example I gave is also not restricted to PA. It works in exactly the same way for any base theory capable of speaking of itself; e.g., if ZFC is consistent, then ZFC + "ZFC is inconsistent" is consistent but not "good". |
Aug
2 |
comment |
Are all the theorems true?
If question 3 is restricted to theories which are "good", then of course they will be consistent as well... consistency is part of your definition of "goodness"! What could question 3 be asking about, if not the question of whether there is a consistent, non-"good" theory? |
Aug
1 |
answered | Are all the theorems true? |
Jul
10 |
comment |
Fiction books about mathematicians?
Mathematicians should not do, and certainly not enjoy, anything other than mathematical research, lest they give themselves away as human beings with a variety of interests and not a 100% devotion to just the one. |
Jun
16 |
comment |
Ingenuity in mathematics
[Pedantic note: 0 and n - 1 can both occur if there is only 1 person at the party. But perhaps it is implicit in "party" that there are at least two people.] |
Jun
9 |
comment |
What are good non-English languages for mathematicians to know?
Knowing some programming language well is probably useful. But C, specifically, needn't be it... |
Jun
1 |
comment |
Is complement of LL(k) grammar context free?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LL_parser |
May
23 |
awarded | Enlightened |
May
23 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
May
2 |
comment |
existence of a field that has a non surjective ring homomorphism
I usually leave only comments rather than answers, to bypass the silly reputation system. But for once, I thought, let me post an actual answer. And what's the result? A bunch of responses about somebody else's answer-posted-as-comment. :) |
May
2 |
comment |
existence of a field that has a non surjective ring homomorphism
Ah, good point! I should have thought of that. I kept implicitly thinking $\mathbb{R}$ was algebraically closed... |
May
2 |
revised |
existence of a field that has a non surjective ring homomorphism
D'oh! |
May
2 |
answered | existence of a field that has a non surjective ring homomorphism |
Apr
9 |
comment |
Why the underlying function of a monomorphism may not be an injection
What more are you looking for, beyond "A generalization may not always behave exactly the same as the thing it generalized, in all respects"? For what it's worth, in the quite common case of a concrete category in which the underlying set functor is representable, (i.e., in which there is a free object on one element), all monomorphisms will be injections. In some sense, the failure of monomorphisms to be injections more generally is just the failure of the underlying set functor to always be representable. |
Feb
19 |
comment |
Nontrivial question about Fibonacci numbers?
Tilings using 1x1 and 1x2 tiles? Bah! It's a direct observation that the "right parents" of each diagonal comprise the previous diagonal, while the "left parents" comprise the twice-previous diagonal. |