This is a photo of me, Andrew Parisi, Dave Ripley, and Chris Martens having a conversation at the University of Connecticut.

This is a photo of me, Andrew Parisi, Dave Ripley, and Chris Martens having a conversation at the University of Connecticut.

I work on metamathematics in a fairly traditional sense. By this I mean that I study mathematical features of formal models of mathematics. What sets my work apart is that I study relevant metamathematics. Roughly speaking, this means that the models of mathematics I build are meant to, first and foremost, be good models of mathematical entailment. This is in contrast to, say, classical metamathematics that aims to first and foremost give a good model of mathematical truth or to intuitionistic metamathematics where the aim is to first and foremost give a good model of mathematical proof or evidence. 

So I guess that means I'm a relevance logician. Having said that, I need to address something: there is a stereotype of the relevance logician that one may encounter in philosophical communities. This stereotyped curmudgeon bangs their fist on tables and grumbles/hollers/otherwise-antagonistically says things like "silly classical/intuitionistic logicians! Only relevance logics are real logics." I am not that person. I think we can use relevance logics to do interesting things and to build models that capture things that are otherwise hard to capture. I think the same is true of classical logics and intuitionistic logics. 

All of that to say that I hope you want to chat about my research, and that if you do, I'll probably want to hear about yours, even if you don't do relevant-y things.

Recent and Upcoming Talks:

Want to hang out? Here are some ways to make it happen:

  • In May, I'll be at the University of Connecticut for the upcoming meeting of the Society for Exact Philosophy. I'll be talking about the alpha calculus, which is a system for reasoning about arbitrary objects.
  • In June, I'll be at the Algebra and Substructural Logics workshop in Cagliari talking about presheaf semantics for quantified relevance logics.
  • I'll be roaming between Zurich and Bonn for a few weeks after that. This means both that I'll be fairly bad at responding to emails and that if you're in that region and looking for someone to talk logic with, you should nonetheless try to get in touch.

Slides and (sometimes!) videos of recent talks (more coming soon!):

  • "Four-Valued First-Order Semantics for RW". Melbourne Logic Group. Slides. Video