(This post is specifically for Math 287 students.)

Starting Monday, you guys should be organized in new groups. No group can have three members that are together in the current groups. When I arrive on Monday, the groups should already be formed. You guys should start working on the laboratory on Polyhedra, Chapter 7. Make sure to bring whatever materials may be needed for this.

There have been complaints about not everybody contributing their share to their respective groups. This is not acceptable, but it is sadly the main reason for the reorganization. So: If I receive two complaints about a member not contributing as required, and there are no reasonable extenuating circumstances, that person will be dropped out of their group (receiving a zero in their current project as a result). If the issue is not expected to be resolved for the next report, a new reorganization of groups will be triggered as a result.

Also, I am unhappy with the level of some of the reports. It seems the peer reviewing of other groups’ drafts is not being taken as seriously as needed. So: Now, on the dates drafts are due, each group should bring three copies of their current draft. When you review another group’s draft, write the members of your group on the copy you are reviewing. I’ll collect the copies, with your comments, copy them for my records and return. If I identify something that a group should have noticed and mentioned, but did not, that group will be penalized (since this means the group did not take their refereeing role seriously). Conversely, if a group mentions something that should be addressed, but I do not see the issue resolved in the final report, the group that failed to address the given comments will be penalized.

Finally, this being a mathematics course, I expect your projects to include proofs. If a project lacks proofs it will receive a failing grade.

Feel free to contact me be email if any of the above needs clarifying.

[…] de puissances, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 3, (1922), 52–58, or Fritz Herzog, George Piranian, Sets of convergence of Taylor series. I. Duke Math. J., 16, (1949), 529–534. Both papers prove more general results, by explicit […]

Yes. This is a consequence of the Davis-Matiyasevich-Putnam-Robinson work on Hilbert's 10th problem, and some standard number theory. A number of papers have details of the $\Pi^0_1$ sentence. To begin with, take a look at the relevant paper in Mathematical developments arising from Hilbert's problems (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Northern Illinois Un […]

I am looking for references discussing two inequalities that come up in the study of the dynamics of Newton's method on real-valued polynomials (in one variable). The inequalities are fairly different, but it seems to make sense to ask about both of them in the same post. Most of the details below are fairly elementary, they are mostly included for comp […]

Let $C$ be the standard Cantor middle-third set. As a consequence of the Baire category theorem, there are numbers $r$ such that $C+r$ consists solely of irrational numbers, see here. What would be an explicit example of a number $r$ with this property? Short of an explicit example, are there any references addressing this question? A natural approach would […]

Not necessarily. That $\mathfrak m$ is consistently singular is proved in MR0947850 (89m:03045) Kunen, Kenneth. Where $\mathsf{MA}$ first fails. J. Symbolic Logic 53(2), (1988), 429–433. There, Ken shows that $\mathfrak{m}$ can be singular of cofinality $\omega_1$. (Both links above are behind paywalls.)

Ignas: It is not possible to provide an explicit expression for a non-linear solution. The reason is that (it is a folklore result that) an additive $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is linear iff it is measurable. (This result can be found in a variety of places, it is a standard exercise in measure theory books. As of this writing, there is a short proof here. […]

Following Tomas's suggestion, I am posting this as an answer: I encountered this problem while directing a Master's thesis two years ago, and again (in a different setting) with another thesis last year. I seem to recall that I somehow got to this while reading slides of a talk by Paul Pollack. Anyway, I like to deduce the results asked in the prob […]

This is a beautiful and truly fundamental result, and so there are several good quality presentations. Try MR1321144. Kanamori, Akihiro. The higher infinite. Large cardinals in set theory from their beginnings. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. xxiv+536 pp. ISBN: 3-540-57071-3, or any of the newer editions (the 2003 second ed […]

Given any field automorphism of $\mathbb C$, the rational numbers are fixed. In fact, any number that is explicitly definable in $\mathbb C$ (in the first order language of fields) is fixed. (Actually, this means that we can only ensure that the rationals are fixed, I expand on this below.) Any construction of a wild automorphism uses the axiom of choice. Se […]

The Milner-Rado paradox is only a paradox in the traditional sense of the word: there are no inconsistencies here, but rather the result is (perhaps naively) seen as counter-intuitive. There are two reasons here: First, if $\alpha=\bigcup_{n

The question immediately reminded me of this. Here is an argument following the same basic idea at the beginning of that argument: First, consider $B=\{x\in A\mid A\cap(-\infty,x]$ is countable$\}$, and note that $B$ itself is countable: The point is that if $x\in B$ then $A\cap(-\infty,x]\subseteq B$. Now, if $B\ne\emptyset$, let $t=\sup B$, fix an increasi […]

RT @AoDespair: A free Wire boxed set signed by Idris Elba and Michael K. Williams to any unfaithful Elector. And the first round on me. #de… 3 days ago

[…] de puissances, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 3, (1922), 52–58, or Fritz Herzog, George Piranian, Sets of convergence of Taylor series. I. Duke Math. J., 16, (1949), 529–534. Both papers prove more general results, by explicit […]