(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 […]

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 […]

Suppose $M$ is an inner model (of $\mathsf{ZF}$) with the same reals as $V$, and let $A\subseteq \mathbb R$ be a set of reals in $M$. Suppose further that $A$ is determined in $M$. Under these assumptions, $A$ is also determined in $V$. The point is that since winning strategies are coded by reals, and any possible run of the game for $A$ is coded by a real, […]

Yes. This is obvious if there are no such cardinals. (I assume that the natural numbers of the universe of sets are the true natural numbers. Otherwise, the answer is no, and there is not much else to do.) Assume now that there are such cardinals, and that "large cardinal axiom" is something reasonable (so, provably in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, the relevant […]

Please send an email to mathrev@ams.org, explaining the issue. (This is our all-purpose email address; any mistakes you discover, not just regarding references, you can let us know there.) Give us some time, I promise we'll get to it. However, if it seems as if the request somehow fell through the cracks, you can always contact one of your friendly edit […]

The characterization mentioned by Mohammad in his answer really dates back to Lev Bukovský in the early 70s, and, as Ralf and Fabiana recognize in their note, has nothing to do with $L$ or with reals (in their note, they indicate that after proving their result, they realized they had essentially rediscovered Bukovský's theorem). See MR0332477 (48 #1080 […]

No, not even $\mathsf{DC}$ suffices for this. Here, $\mathsf{DC}$ is the axiom of dependent choice, which is strictly stronger than countable choice. For instance, it is a theorem of $\mathsf{ZF}$ that for any set $X$, the set $\mathcal{WO}(X)$ of subsets of $X$ that are well-orderable has size strictly larger than the size of $X$. This is a result of Tarski […]

I give an example (perhaps the best-known example) below, but let me first discuss equiconsistency rather than straight equivalence. Usually an equiconsistency is really the sort of result you are after anyway: You want to establish that certain statements in the universe where choice holds correspond to determinacy, which implies the failure of choice. The […]

The other answers have correctly identified the issue. Let me highlight the difficulty: it is relatively consistent with the axioms of set theory except for the axiom of choice that there are infinite sets which do not contain a copy of the natural numbers (that is, there are infinite sets $X$ such that there is no injection $f\!:\mathbb N\to X$). This means […]

This is $\aleph_\omega^{\aleph_0}$. First of all, this cardinal is an obvious upper bound. Second, if $A\subseteq\omega$ is infinite, $\prod_{i\in A}\aleph_i$ is clearly at least $\aleph_\omega$. The result follows, by splitting $\omega$ into countably many infinite sets. In general, the rules governing infinite products and exponentials are far from being w […]

If $\lambda$ and $\kappa$ are cardinals, $\lambda^\kappa$ represents the cardinality of the set of functions $f\!:A\to B$ where $A,B$ are fixed sets of cardinality $\kappa,\lambda$ respectively. (One needs to check this is independent of which specific sets $A,B$ we pick, of course.) At least for finite numbers, this is something you may have encountered in […]

[…] 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 […]