BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Jouko Väänänen

Jouko Väänänen contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
math.LOLogic in Computer Science

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Modular SAT-based techniques for reasoning tasks in team semantics

We study the complexity of reasoning tasks for logics in team semantics. Our main focus is on the data complexity of model checking but we also derive new results for logically defined counting and enumeration problems. Our approach is based on modular reductions of these problems into the corresponding problems of various classes of Boolean formulas. We illustrate our approach via several new tractability/intractability results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On highly equivalent non-isomorphic countable models of arithmetic and set theory

It is well-known that the first order Peano axioms PA have a continuum of non-isomorphic countable models. The question, how close to being isomorphic such countable models can be, seems to be less investigated. A measure of closeness to isomorphism of countable models is the length of back-and-forth sequences that can be established between them. We show that for every countable ordinal alpha there are countable non-isomorphic models of PA with a back-and-forth sequence of length alpha between them. This implies that the Scott height (or rank) of such models is bigger than $α$. We also prove the same result for models of ZFC.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Bounded Symbiosis and Upwards Reflection

Bagaria and Väänänen developed a framework for studying the large cardinal strength of downwards Löwenheim-Skolem theorems and related set theoretic reflection properties. The main tool was the notion of symbiosis, originally introduced by the third author. Symbiosis provides a way of relating model theoretic properties of strong logics to definability in set theory. In this paper we continue the systematic investigation of symbiosis and apply it to upwards Löwenheim-Skolem theorems and reflection principles. To achieve this, we need to adapt the notion of symbiosis to a new form, called bounded symbiosis. As one easy application, we obtain upper and lower bounds for the large cardinal strength of upwards Löwenheim-Skolem-type principles for second order logic.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Inner Models from Extended Logics: Part 1

If we replace first order logic by second order logic in the original definition of Gödel's inner model $L$, we obtain HOD. In this paper we consider inner models that arise if we replace first order logic by a logic that has some, but not all, of the strength of second order logic. Typical examples are the extensions of first order logic by generalized quantifiers, such as the Magidor-Malitz quantifier, the cofinality quantifier, or stationary logic. Our first set of results show that both $L$ and HOD manifest some amount of {\em formalism freeness} in the sense that they are not very sensitive to the choice of the underlying logic. Our second set of results shows that the cofinality quantifier gives rise to a new robust inner model between $L$ and HOD. We show, among other things, that assuming a proper class of Woodin cardinals the regular cardinals $>\aleph_1$ of $V$ are weakly compact in the inner model arising from the cofinality quantifier and the theory of that model is (set) forcing absolute and independent of the cofinality in question. We do not know whether this model satisfies the Continuum Hypothesis, assuming large cardinals, but we can show, assuming three Woodin cardinals and a measurable above them, that if the construction is relativized to a real, then on a cone of reals the Continuum Hypothesis is true in the relativized model.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Tracing Internal Categoricity

Informally speaking, the categoricity of an axiom system means that its non-logical symbols have only one possible interpretation that renders the axioms true. Although non-categoricity has become ubiquitous in the second half of the 20th century whether one looks at number theory, geometry or analysis, the first axiomatizations of such mathematical theories by Dedekind, Hilbert, Huntington, Peano and Veblen were indeed categorical. A common resolution of the difference between the earlier categorical axiomatizations and the more modern non-categorical axiomatizations is that the latter derive their non-categoricity from Skolem's Paradox and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, while the former, being second order, suffer from a heavy reliance on metatheory, where the Skolem-Gödel phenomenon re-emerges. Using second order meta-theory to avoid non-categoricity of the meta-theory would only seem to lead to an infinite regress. In this paper we maintain that internal categoricity breaks this traditional picture. It applies to both first and second order axiomatizations, although in the first order case we have so far only examples. It does not depend on the meta-theory in a way that would lead to an infinite regress. And it covers the classical categoricity results of early researchers. In the first order case it is weaker than categoricity itself, and in the second order case stronger. We give arguments suggesting that internal categoricity is the "right" concept of categoricity.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access