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.

### Upcoming Talks:

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

- On June 6, I'm giving a talk on stratified semantics for quantified relevance logics at Arché.
- On June 12, I'll be at the Algebra and Substructural Logics workshop in Cagliari talking about presheaf semantics for quantified relevance logics.
- Finally, on June 21, I'll be again talking about stratified semantics, this time in Bochum.

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