**W. Hugh Woodin**, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

**Articles**: To Settle Infinity Dispute, Wolchover, *Quanta Magazine*, Nov. 2013**ArXiv** (11)

Homepage(s): dblp, PhilPeople, Contemporary Mathematics (2015)**Publications**:

• Woodin, W. Hugh (1999), *The Axiom of Determinacy, Forcing Axioms, and the Nonstationary Ideal*, Walter de Gruyter, doi:10.1515/9783110804737, ISBN 3-11-015708-X, MR 1713438

• Woodin, W. Hugh (2001), “The continuum hypothesis. I” (PDF), *Notices of the American Mathematical Society*, **48** (6): 567–576, ISSN 0002-9920, MR 1834351

• Woodin, W. Hugh (2001b), “The Continuum Hypothesis, Part II” (PDF), *Notices of the AMS*, **48** (7): 681–690

• Woodin, W. Hugh (2005), “The continuum hypothesis”, in Cori, Rene; Razborov, Alexander; Todorčević, Stevo; et al. (eds.), *Logic Colloquium 2000*, Lect. Notes Log., vol. 19, Urbana, IL: Assoc. Symbol. Logic, pp. 143–197, MR 2143878

Twitter: Wolchover update, Baez

Wikipedia: born April 23, 1955

YouTube: World Science Festival (2013), On the Mathematical Necessity of the Infinite, 2020

Most recent and Second email: 17 July 2022 at 11:27 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. W. Hugh Woodin:

If the Planck base units are meaningful, and that seems to have been settled in the past twenty or so years, does it describe a starting point for spacetime? I have naively concluded that it does. When Planck’s efficacy was questioned, I dropped back to the 1874 work of George Johnstone Stoney and suggest the actual numbers be understood to be symbolic yet still a real reality.

So, from where does everything come? I redefined infinity in light of three most basic facts of pi, and say, “Continuity-symmetry-harmony.” All other discussions are considered personal. Of course, that may well be just too naive in light of the work of Hilbert, G*ö*del and Woodin. Yet, if we can show from where imperfections originate, maybe we have something a little different. Assuming perfection is the sphere and pi, the first imperfections may well be geometric; and, Aristotle may have unwittingly missed that key marker, five tetrahedrons creating a gap. It seems nobody recognized the five-octahedral gap. It is too simple, but it looks good coupled with the five-tetrahedral gap. I think there is something to it. That little cluster looks like a logic gate and when you add the twenty-tetrahedral icosahedron in place of a five-tetrahedral unit, complexity-and-possibility are multiplied.

I seem to be off in la-la land, but it might be of some interest to a scholar with depth of knowledge and perspective. Is there anything interesting going on here?

Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

First email: July 7, 2022, 2:33 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. W. Hugh Woodin:

While a senior in Wilmington High School (1965), my father and I went to an “all-night” teach-in at Memorial Hall upon which I joined the Students for a Democratic Society (which met in the basement of Sever Hall until we were thrown off campus). Six years later I was back with Arthur Loeb and Bucky Fuller (Philomorphs) which met in the attic of Sever. Then a few years later I was with Arthur McGill over at HDS where nine graduate students pried open **Finite and Infinite** by Austin Farrer.

My infinity statement is here; I was pleased to find yours, *Infinity captivates the imagination*; and then, even more pleased to engage your Ω-logic. Thank you for all that you do.

Warmly,

Bruce

********************

Bruce E. Camber

https://81018.com