DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1709.04076V1 [Math.CO] 12 Sep 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1709.04076V1 [Math.CO] 12 Sep 2017 Nonstandard Methods in Ramsey Theory and Combinatorial Number Theory Mauro Di Nasso, Isaac Goldbring, and Martino Lupini arXiv:1709.04076v1 [math.CO] 12 Sep 2017 Acknowledgements The collaboration between the authors first began when they participated in an American Institute of Mathematics (AIM) Structured Quartet Research Ensemble (or SQuaRE) program together with Renling Jin, Steven Leth, and Karl Mahlburg. We thus want to thank AIM for all of their support during our three year participation in the SQuaRE program as well as their encouragement to organize a larger workshop on the subject. A preliminary version of this manuscript was distributed during that workshop and we want to thank the participants for their valuable comments. In particular, Steven Leth and Terence Tao gave us a tremendous amount of feedback and for that we want to give them an extra expression of gratitude. i Introduction Generally speaking, Ramsey theory studies which combinatorial configurations of a structure are can always be found in one of the pieces of a given finite partition. More generally, it considers the problem of which combinatorial configurations can be found in sets that are “large” in some suitable sense. Dating back to the foundational results of van der Waerden, Ramsey, Erd˝os, Tur´an and others from the 1920s and 1930s, Ramsey theory has since then had an extraordinary development. On the one had, many applications of Ramsey theory have been found to numerous other areas of mathematics, ranging from functional analysis, topology, and dynamics, to set theory, model theory, and computer science. On the other hand, results and methods from other areas of mathematics have been successfully applied to establish new results in Ramsey theory. For instance, ergodic theory and the theory of recurrence in measurable dynamics has had a huge impact on Ramsey theory, to the point of giving rise to the research area of “ergodic Ramsey theory.” Perhaps the best known achievement of this approach is the ergodic-theoretic proof of Szemer´edi’s theorem due to Furstenberg in the 1980s. In a different (but intimately related) direction, the theory of ultrafilters has been an important source of methods and ideas for Ramsey theory. In particular, the study of topological and algebraic properties of the space of ultrafilters has been used to give short and elegant proofs of deep combinatorial pigeonhole principles. Paradigmatic in this direction is the Galvin–Glazer ultrafilter proof of Hindman’s theorem on sets of finite sums, previously established by Hindman in 1974 via a delicate, purely combinatorial argument. Recently, a new thread of research has emerged, where problems in Ramsey theory are studied from the perspective of nonstandard analysis and nonstandard methods. Developed by Abraham Robinson in the 1960s and based on first order logic and model theory, nonstandard analysis provided a formal and rigorous treatment of calculus and classical analysis via infinitesimals, an approach more similar in spirit to the approach originally taken in the development of calculus in the 17th and 18th century, and avoids the epsilon-delta arguments that are inherent in its later formalization due to Weierstrass. While this is perhaps its most well known application, nonstandard analysis is actually much more versatile. The foundations of nonstandard analysis provide an approach, which we shall call the nonstandard method, that is applicable to virtually any area of mathematics. The nonstandard method has thus far been used in numerous areas of mathematics, including functional analysis, measure theory, ergodic theory, differential equations, and stochastic analysis, just to name a few such areas. In a nutshell, the nonstandardmethod allows one to extend the given mathematical universe and thus regard it as contained in a much richer nonstandard universe. Such a nonstandard universe satisfies strong saturation properties which in particular allow one to consider limiting objects which do not exist in the standard universe. This procedure is similar to passing to an ultrapower, and in fact the nonstandard method can also be seen as a way to axiomatize the ultrapower construction in a way that distillates its essential features and benefits, but avoids being bogged down by the irrelevant details of its con- crete implementation. This limiting process allows one to reformulate a given problem involving finite (but arbitrarily large) structures or configurations into a problem involving a single structure or configuration which is infinite but for all purposes behaves as though it were finite (in the precise sense that it is hyperfinite in the nonstandard universe). This reformulation can then be tackled directly using finitary methods, ranging from combinatorial counting arguments to recurrence theorems for measurable dynamics, recast in the nonstandard universe. In the setting of Ramsey theory and combinatorics, the application of nonstandard methods had been pioneered by the work of Keisler, Leth, and Jin from the 1980s and 1990s. These applications had focused on density problems in combinatorial number theory. The general goal in this area is to establish the existence of combinatorial configurations in sets that are large in that sense that they have positive asymptotic density. For example, the aforementioned celebrated theorem of Szmer´edi from 1970 asserts that a set of integers of positive density contains arbitrarily long finite arithmetic progressions. One of the contributions of the nonstandard approach is to translate the notion of asymptotic density on the integers, which does not satisfies all the properties of a measure, into an actual measure in the nonstandard universe. This translation then makes methods from measure theory and ergodic theory, such as the ergodic theorem or other recurrence theorems, available for the study of density problems. In a sense, this can be seen as a version of Furstenberg’s correspondence (between sets of integers ii INTRODUCTION iii and measurable sets in a dynamical system), with the extra feature that the dynamical system obtained perfectly reflects all the combinatorial properties of the set that one started with. The achievements of the nonstandard approach in this area include the work of Leth on arithmetic progressions in sparse sets, Jin’s theorem on sumsets, as well as Jin’s Freiman-type results on inverse problems for sumsets. More recently, these methods have also been used by Jin, Leth, Mahlburg, and the present authors to tackle a conjecture of Erd˝os concerning sums of infinite sets (the so-called B +C conjecture). Nonstandard methods are also tightly connected with ultrafilter methods. This has been made precise and successfully applied in recent work of Di Nasso, where he observed that there is a perfect correspondencebetween ultrafilters and elements of the nonstandard universe up to a natural notion of equivalence. One the one hand, this allows one to manipulate ultrafilters as nonstandard points, and to use ultrafilter methods to prove the existence of certain combinatorial configurations in the nonstandard universe. One the other hand, this gives an intuitive and direct way to infer, from the existence of certain ultrafilter configurations, the existence of corresponding standard combinatorial configuration via the fundamental principle of transfer in the nonstandard method. This perspective has successfully been applied by Di Nasso and co-authors to the study of partition regularity problems for Diophantine equations over the integers, providing in particular a far-reaching generalization of the classical theorem of Rado on partition regularity of systems of linear equations. Unlike Rado’s theorem, this recent generalization also includes equations that are not linear. Finally, it is worth mentioning that many other results in combinatorics can be seen, directly or indirectly, as applications of the nonstandard method. For instance, the groundbreaking work of Hrushovski and Breuillard–Green–Tao on approximate groups, although not originally presented in this way, admit a natural nonstandard treatment. The same applies to the work of Bergelson and Tao on recurrence in quasirandom groups. The goal of this present manuscript is to introduce the uninitiated reader to the nonstandard method and to provide an overview of its most prominent applications in Ramsey theory and combinatorial number theory. In particular, no previous knowledge of nonstandard analysis will be assumed. Instead, we will provide a complete and self-contained introduction to the nonstandard method in the first part of this book. Novel to our introduction is a treatment of the topic of iterated hyperex- tensions, which is crucial for some applications and has thus far appeared only in specialized research articles. The intended audience for this book include researchers in combinatorics that desire to get acquainted with the nonstandard approach, as well as experts of nonstandard analysis who have been working in this or other areas of research. The list of applications of the nonstandard method to combinatorics and Ramsey theory presented here is quite extensive, including cornerstone results of Ramsey theory such as Ramsey’s theorem, Hindman’s theorem on sets of finite sums, the Hales–Jewett theorem on variable words, and Gowers’ theorem on FINk. It then proceeds with results on partition regularity of diophantine equations and with density problems in combinatorial number theory. A nonstandard treatment of the triangle removal lemma, the Szemer´edi
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Actual Infinitesimals in Leibniz's Early Thought
    Actual Infinitesimals in Leibniz’s Early Thought By RICHARD T. W. ARTHUR (HAMILTON, ONTARIO) Abstract Before establishing his mature interpretation of infinitesimals as fictions, Gottfried Leibniz had advocated their existence as actually existing entities in the continuum. In this paper I trace the development of these early attempts, distinguishing three distinct phases in his interpretation of infinitesimals prior to his adopting a fictionalist interpretation: (i) (1669) the continuum consists of assignable points separated by unassignable gaps; (ii) (1670-71) the continuum is composed of an infinity of indivisible points, or parts smaller than any assignable, with no gaps between them; (iii) (1672- 75) a continuous line is composed not of points but of infinitely many infinitesimal lines, each of which is divisible and proportional to a generating motion at an instant (conatus). In 1676, finally, Leibniz ceased to regard infinitesimals as actual, opting instead for an interpretation of them as fictitious entities which may be used as compendia loquendi to abbreviate mathematical reasonings. Introduction Gottfried Leibniz’s views on the status of infinitesimals are very subtle, and have led commentators to a variety of different interpretations. There is no proper common consensus, although the following may serve as a summary of received opinion: Leibniz developed the infinitesimal calculus in 1675-76, but during the ensuing twenty years was content to refine its techniques and explore the richness of its applications in co-operation with Johann and Jakob Bernoulli, Pierre Varignon, de l’Hospital and others, without worrying about the ontic status of infinitesimals. Only after the criticisms of Bernard Nieuwentijt and Michel Rolle did he turn himself to the question of the foundations of the calculus and 2 Richard T.
    [Show full text]
  • Cauchy, Infinitesimals and Ghosts of Departed Quantifiers 3
    CAUCHY, INFINITESIMALS AND GHOSTS OF DEPARTED QUANTIFIERS JACQUES BAIR, PIOTR BLASZCZYK, ROBERT ELY, VALERIE´ HENRY, VLADIMIR KANOVEI, KARIN U. KATZ, MIKHAIL G. KATZ, TARAS KUDRYK, SEMEN S. KUTATELADZE, THOMAS MCGAFFEY, THOMAS MORMANN, DAVID M. SCHAPS, AND DAVID SHERRY Abstract. Procedures relying on infinitesimals in Leibniz, Euler and Cauchy have been interpreted in both a Weierstrassian and Robinson’s frameworks. The latter provides closer proxies for the procedures of the classical masters. Thus, Leibniz’s distinction be- tween assignable and inassignable numbers finds a proxy in the distinction between standard and nonstandard numbers in Robin- son’s framework, while Leibniz’s law of homogeneity with the im- plied notion of equality up to negligible terms finds a mathematical formalisation in terms of standard part. It is hard to provide paral- lel formalisations in a Weierstrassian framework but scholars since Ishiguro have engaged in a quest for ghosts of departed quantifiers to provide a Weierstrassian account for Leibniz’s infinitesimals. Euler similarly had notions of equality up to negligible terms, of which he distinguished two types: geometric and arithmetic. Eu- ler routinely used product decompositions into a specific infinite number of factors, and used the binomial formula with an infi- nite exponent. Such procedures have immediate hyperfinite ana- logues in Robinson’s framework, while in a Weierstrassian frame- work they can only be reinterpreted by means of paraphrases de- parting significantly from Euler’s own presentation. Cauchy gives lucid definitions of continuity in terms of infinitesimals that find ready formalisations in Robinson’s framework but scholars working in a Weierstrassian framework bend over backwards either to claim that Cauchy was vague or to engage in a quest for ghosts of de- arXiv:1712.00226v1 [math.HO] 1 Dec 2017 parted quantifiers in his work.
    [Show full text]
  • Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, and the Gang: the True History of the Concepts Of
    FERMAT, LEIBNIZ, EULER, AND THE GANG: THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE CONCEPTS OF LIMIT AND SHADOW TIZIANA BASCELLI, EMANUELE BOTTAZZI, FREDERIK HERZBERG, VLADIMIR KANOVEI, KARIN U. KATZ, MIKHAIL G. KATZ, TAHL NOWIK, DAVID SHERRY, AND STEVEN SHNIDER Abstract. Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, and Cauchy all used one or another form of approximate equality, or the idea of discarding “negligible” terms, so as to obtain a correct analytic answer. Their inferential moves find suitable proxies in the context of modern the- ories of infinitesimals, and specifically the concept of shadow. We give an application to decreasing rearrangements of real functions. Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Methodological remarks 4 2.1. A-track and B-track 5 2.2. Formal epistemology: Easwaran on hyperreals 6 2.3. Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms and the Feferman–Levy model 8 2.4. Skolem integers and Robinson integers 9 2.5. Williamson, complexity, and other arguments 10 2.6. Infinity and infinitesimal: let both pretty severely alone 13 3. Fermat’s adequality 13 3.1. Summary of Fermat’s algorithm 14 arXiv:1407.0233v1 [math.HO] 1 Jul 2014 3.2. Tangent line and convexity of parabola 15 3.3. Fermat, Galileo, and Wallis 17 4. Leibniz’s Transcendental law of homogeneity 18 4.1. When are quantities equal? 19 4.2. Product rule 20 5. Euler’s Principle of Cancellation 20 6. What did Cauchy mean by “limit”? 22 6.1. Cauchy on Leibniz 23 6.2. Cauchy on continuity 23 7. Modern formalisations: a case study 25 8. A combinatorial approach to decreasing rearrangements 26 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Simple Infinitesimal Parts Solve Zeno's Paradox of Measure?
    Do Simple Infinitesimal Parts Solve Zeno's Paradox of Measure?∗ Lu Chen (Forthcoming in Synthese) Abstract In this paper, I develop an original view of the structure of space|called infinitesimal atomism|as a reply to Zeno's paradox of measure. According to this view, space is composed of ultimate parts with infinitesimal size, where infinitesimals are understood within the framework of Robinson's (1966) nonstandard analysis. Notably, this view satisfies a version of additivity: for every region that has a size, its size is the sum of the sizes of its disjoint parts. In particular, the size of a finite region is the sum of the sizes of its infinitesimal parts. Although this view is a coherent approach to Zeno's paradox and is preferable to Skyrms's (1983) infinitesimal approach, it faces both the main problem for the standard view (the problem of unmeasurable regions) and the main problem for finite atomism (Weyl's tile argument), leaving it with no clear advantage over these familiar alternatives. Keywords: continuum; Zeno's paradox of measure; infinitesimals; unmeasurable ∗Special thanks to Jeffrey Russell and Phillip Bricker for their extensive feedback on early drafts of the paper. Many thanks to the referees of Synthese for their very helpful comments. I'd also like to thank the participants of Umass dissertation seminar for their useful feedback on my first draft. 1 regions; Weyl's tile argument 1 Zeno's Paradox of Measure A continuum, such as the region of space you occupy, is commonly taken to be indefinitely divisible. But this view runs into Zeno's famous paradox of measure.
    [Show full text]
  • Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics
    Found Sci DOI 10.1007/s10699-012-9316-5 Tools, Objects, and Chimeras: Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics Vladimir Kanovei · Mikhail G. Katz · Thomas Mormann © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract We examine some of Connes’ criticisms of Robinson’s infinitesimals starting in 1995. Connes sought to exploit the Solovay model S as ammunition against non-standard analysis, but the model tends to boomerang, undercutting Connes’ own earlier work in func- tional analysis. Connes described the hyperreals as both a “virtual theory” and a “chimera”, yet acknowledged that his argument relies on the transfer principle. We analyze Connes’ “dart-throwing” thought experiment, but reach an opposite conclusion. In S, all definable sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable, suggesting that Connes views a theory as being “vir- tual” if it is not definable in a suitable model of ZFC. If so, Connes’ claim that a theory of the hyperreals is “virtual” is refuted by the existence of a definable model of the hyperreal field due to Kanovei and Shelah. Free ultrafilters aren’t definable, yet Connes exploited such ultrafilters both in his own earlier work on the classification of factors in the 1970s and 80s, and in Noncommutative Geometry, raising the question whether the latter may not be vulnera- ble to Connes’ criticism of virtuality. We analyze the philosophical underpinnings of Connes’ argument based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and detect an apparent circularity in Connes’ logic. We document the reliance on non-constructive foundational material, and specifically on the Dixmier trace − (featured on the front cover of Connes’ magnum opus) V.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1405.0984V4 [Math.DG] 23 Dec 2015 Ai N Vryte Pwt Lsia Nltcntos Ntepresen D the finite in by Defined Notions
    DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY VIA INFINITESIMAL DISPLACEMENTS TAHL NOWIK AND MIKHAIL G. KATZ Abstract. We present a new formulation of some basic differential geometric notions on a smooth manifold M, in the setting of nonstandard analysis. In place of classical vector fields, for which one needs to construct the tangent bundle of M, we define a prevector field, which is an internal map from ∗M to itself, implementing the intuitive notion of vectors as infinitesimal displacements. We introduce regularity conditions for prevector fields, defined by finite dif- ferences, thus purely combinatorial conditions involving no analysis. These conditions replace the more elaborate analytic regularity conditions appearing in previous similar approaches, e.g. by Stroyan and Luxemburg or Lutz and Goze. We define the flow of a prevector field by hyperfinite iteration of the given prevector field, in the spirit of Euler’s method. We define the Lie bracket of two prevector fields by appropriate iteration of their commutator. We study the properties of flows and Lie brackets, particularly in relation with our proposed regularity conditions. We present several simple applications to the classical setting, such as bounds re- lated to the flow of vector fields, analysis of small oscillations of a pendulum, and an instance of Frobenius’ Theorem regarding the complete integrability of independent vector fields. 1. Introduction We develop foundations for differential geometry on smooth manifolds, based on infinites- imals, where vectors and vector fields are represented by infinitesimal displacements in the arXiv:1405.0984v4 [math.DG] 23 Dec 2015 manifold itself, as they were thought of historically. Such an approach was previously intro- duced e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 25: Ultraproducts
    LECTURE 25: ULTRAPRODUCTS CALEB STANFORD First, recall that given a collection of sets and an ultrafilter on the index set, we formed an ultraproduct of those sets. It is important to think of the ultraproduct as a set-theoretic construction rather than a model- theoretic construction, in the sense that it is a product of sets rather than a product of structures. I.e., if Xi Q are sets for i = 1; 2; 3;:::, then Xi=U is another set. The set we use does not depend on what constant, function, and relation symbols may exist and have interpretations in Xi. (There are of course profound model-theoretic consequences of this, but the underlying construction is a way of turning a collection of sets into a new set, and doesn't make use of any notions from model theory!) We are interested in the particular case where the index set is N and where there is a set X such that Q Xi = X for all i. Then Xi=U is written XN=U, and is called the ultrapower of X by U. From now on, we will consider the ultrafilter to be a fixed nonprincipal ultrafilter, and will just consider the ultrapower of X to be the ultrapower by this fixed ultrafilter. It doesn't matter which one we pick, in the sense that none of our results will require anything from U beyond its nonprincipality. The ultrapower has two important properties. The first of these is the Transfer Principle. The second is @0-saturation. 1. The Transfer Principle Let L be a language, X a set, and XL an L-structure on X.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonstandard Analysis (Math 649K) Spring 2008
    Nonstandard Analysis (Math 649k) Spring 2008 David Ross, Department of Mathematics February 29, 2008 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Outline of course: 1. Introduction: motivation, history, and propoganda 2. Nonstandard models: definition, properties, some unavoidable logic 3. Very basic Calculus/Analysis 4. Applications of saturation 5. General Topology 6. Measure Theory 7. Functional Analysis 8. Probability 1.2 Some References: 1. Abraham Robinson (1966) Nonstandard Analysis North Holland, Amster- dam 2. Martin Davis and Reuben Hersh Nonstandard Analysis Scientific Ameri- can, June 1972 3. Davis, M. (1977) Applied Nonstandard Analysis Wiley, New York. 4. Sergio Albeverio, Jens Erik Fenstad, Raphael Høegh-Krohn, and Tom Lindstrøm (1986) Nonstandard Methods in Stochastic Analysis and Math- ematical Physics. Academic Press, New York. 5. Al Hurd and Peter Loeb (1985) An introduction to Nonstandard Real Anal- ysis Academic Press, New York. 6. Keith Stroyan and Wilhelminus Luxemburg (1976) Introduction to the Theory of Infinitesimals Academic Press, New York. 7. Keith Stroyan and Jose Bayod (1986) Foundations of Infinitesimal Stochas- tic Analysis North Holland, Amsterdam 8. Leif Arkeryd, Nigel Cutland, C. Ward Henson (eds) (1997) Nonstandard Analysis: Theory and Applications, Kluwer 9. Rob Goldblatt (1998) Lectures on the Hyperreals, Springer 2 1.3 Some history: • (xxxx) Archimedes • (1615) Kepler, Nova stereometria dolorium vinariorium • (1635) Cavalieri, Geometria indivisibilus • (1635) Excercitationes geometricae (”Rigor is the affair of philosophy rather
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Basic Concepts in This Section We Take X to Be Any Infinite Set Of
    401 4. Basic Concepts In this section we take X to be any infinite set of individuals that contains R as a subset and we assume that ∗ : U(X) → U(∗X) is a proper nonstandard extension. The purpose of this section is to introduce three important concepts that are characteristic of arguments using nonstandard analysis: overspill and underspill (consequences of certain sets in U(∗X) not being internal); hy- perfinite sets and hyperfinite sums (combinatorics of hyperfinite objects in U(∗X)); and saturation. Overspill and underspill ∗ ∗ 4.1. Lemma. The sets N, µ(0), and fin( R) are external in U( X). Proof. Every bounded nonempty subset of N has a maximum element. By transfer we conclude that every bounded nonempty internal subset of ∗N ∗ has a maximum element. Since N is a subset of N that is bounded above ∗ (by any infinite element of N) but that has no maximum element, it follows that N is external. Every bounded nonempty subset of R has a least upper bound. By transfer ∗ we conclude that every bounded nonempty internal subset of R has a least ∗ upper bound. Since µ(0) is a bounded nonempty subset of R that has no least upper bound, it follows that µ(0) is external. ∗ ∗ ∗ If fin( R) were internal, so would N = fin( R) ∩ N be internal. Since N is ∗ external, it follows that fin( R) is also external. 4.2. Proposition. (Overspill and Underspill Principles) Let A be an in- ternal set in U(∗X). ∗ (1) (For N) A contains arbitrarily large elements of N if and only if A ∗ contains arbitrarily small infinite elements of N.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Math/0209292V2 [Math.OA] 13 Dec 2002 Ntsmlnr.Though Norm
    QUASIDIAGONAL C∗-ALGEBRAS AND NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS F. Javier Thayer Suppose B is an ultraproduct of finite dimensional C∗-algebras. We consider mapping and injectability properties for separable C∗- algebras into B. In the case of approximately finite C∗-algebras, we obtain a classification of these mappings up to inner conju- gacy. Using a Theorem of Voiculescu, we show that for nuclear C∗-algebras injectability into an ultraproduct of finite dimensional C∗-algebras is equivalent to quasidiagonality. 1. Introduction In this paper we use nonstandard analysis ([1], [13], [15]) to investigate injectability into C∗-algebras B which are infinitesimal hulls of hyperfinite dimensional inter- nal C∗-algebras B. B is obtained from B by considering the subspace Fin(B) of elements with norm and identifying x, y Fin(B) whenever x y has in- finitesimal norm. Though≪ ∞ B is a legitimate standard∈ C∗-algebra, it is− very large, except in the uninteresting case the original B is finite dimensional. We point out that the C∗-algebras B are exactly ultraproducts of finite-dimensional C∗-algebras (see [11] or the appendix). A more interesting question from an operator theorist’s viewpoint, is which kinds of separable C∗-algebras are injectable into B and what kinds of mappings exist from separable C∗-algebras into B. We show the following: If A is an AF algebra, Proposition 5.3 determines the inner conjugacy classes of C∗-morphisms for A into a fixed B in terms of certain projective systems of matrices with nonnegative integer entries. Proposition 5.6 gives a necessary and sufficient condition for injectability of an AF algebra into a fixed B in similar terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Hyperfinite Probability Theory and Stochastic Analysis Within Edward Nelson's Internal Set Theory Revised Version (1. Februar
    Hyperfinite Probability Theory and Stochastic Analysis within Edward Nelson’s Internal Set Theory Revised Version (1. Februar 2011)Diplomarbeit des Department Mathematik Friedrich Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Thomas Runge geb. 20. September 1981 in Nürnberg Betreuer Prof. Dr. Günter Leugering Prof. Dr. Ulrich Rüde Dr. Wolfgang Degen Angemeldet 29. Juli 2010 Abgegeben 5. August 2010 2 3 Erklärung: Ich versichere, dass ich die Arbeit ohne fremde Hilfe und ohne Benutzung anderer als der angegebenen Quellen angefertigt habe und dass die Arbeit in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form noch keiner anderen Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegen hat und von dieser als Teil einer Prüfungsleistung angenommen wurde. Alle Ausführungen, die wörtlich oder sinngemäß übernommen wurden, sind als solche gekennzeich- net. Erlangen, 5. August 2010 ............................................... 4 Contents 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Structure and Outline . 8 2 Internal Set Theory 11 2.1 Axiomatic Description . 11 2.1.1 The Transfer principle . 12 2.1.2 The Idealization principle . 13 2.1.3 The Standardization principle . 15 2.2 Basics of Nonstandard Analysis . 17 2.2.1 The Infinitesimal Calculus . 18 2.2.2 Hyperfinite Sets and Hyperfinite Maps . 21 3 Measure and Probability Theory 25 3.1 Measure and Probability Spaces . 25 3.1.1 Standardized Measures . 27 3.1.2 The Lebesgue Integral . 31 3.1.3 Mean and Variance . 34 3.2 Large numbers . 38 3.2.1 Central Limit Theorem . 39 3.2.2 The Laws of Large Numbers . 42 4 Hyperfinite Stochastic Analysis 45 4.1 Stochastic processes . 45 4.1.1 Brownian motion . 47 4.2 Stochastic Differential Equations . 48 4.2.1 The Stochastic Integral .
    [Show full text]
  • Infinitesimal Gunk
    Infinitesimal Gunk∗ Lu Chen (Forthcoming in Journal of Philosophical Logic) Abstract. In this paper, I advance an original view of the structure of space called Infinitesimal Gunk. This view says that every region of space can be further divided and some regions have infinitesimal size, where infinitesimals are understood in the framework of Robinson's (1966) nonstandard analysis. This view, I argue, provides a novel reply to the inconsistency arguments proposed by Arntzenius (2008) and Russell (2008), which have troubled a more familiar gunky approach. Moreover, it has important advantages over the alternative views these authors suggested. Unlike Arntzenius's proposal, it does not introduce regions with no interior. It also has a much richer measure theory than Russell's proposal and does not retreat to mere finite additivity. 1 Is Space Pointy? Consider the space you occupy. Does it have ultimate parts? According to the standard view, the answer is yes: space is composed of uncountably many unextended ∗I thank Jeffrey Russell for his very valuable input to multiple drafts of the paper. I thank Philip Bricker for his helpful feedback on early drafts of the paper. Thanks to Cian Dorr for his encouraging comments. Thanks to Tobias Fritz for helpful discussions. Special thanks to two anonymous referees of Journal of Philosophical Logic for their scrupulous read, very helpful comments, and for pressing me on important details. 1 points.1 Although standard, this view leads to many counterintuitive results. For example, intuitively, the size of a region should be the sum of the sizes of its disjoint parts.2 But according to the standard view, the points have zero size.
    [Show full text]