Pete1187

Great to have you on here Dr. Frenkel. I just finished reading Love & Math and it is now one of my favorite books on the subject (your platonist approach exactly jives with my own philosophy as well).

I know you've done extensive work on the Langlands Program, but I wanted to ask about something that might even delve into a more abstract realm: foundations of mathematics and set/category/topos theory. I have always been interested in seeing whether we could develop an all encompassing framework despite decades of seeing a proliferation of different set theories with all sorts of independence results. I know Hugh Woodin has been working on this with his "Ultimate L" research program, while others say pluralism is here to stay (like Joel David Hamkins, who is also a mathematical platonist).

What are your thoughts on this subject? Do you think mathematicians like Hugh Woodin and Peter Koellner may find success in developing an ultimate, canonical model of set theory? Or would you more closely align yourself with the multiverse view of set theory that Hamkins advocates for?

With the LHC about to restart as max energy, are there absolutely no hints or tantalizing signs of Supersymmetry in previous data that might be pointing us to physics beyond the Standard Model?