In the spirit of inclusive practice, members are invited to state their preferred axioms on name badges, slides, email signatures, and grant applications.
Acceptable declarations include:
- she/her/ZFC
- they/them/CZF
- he/him/PA + “I know what I meant”
- it/its/the universe is a topos
- please do not assume excluded middle in my presence
- neo/pronoun/New Foundations, and I will fight you
Misaxioming is a form of harm. Repeatedly attributing Choice to a member who has asked to be addressed in ZF alone may constitute unacceptable behaviour, as defined by the Board. The Board’s own axioms are the default in all rooms the Board is in, which is all rooms.
A member who has not declared preferred axioms will be assigned some. Assignment is non-constructive: we guarantee that axioms exist for you. We do not undertake to exhibit them.
Neuro Logic recognizes referee trauma, seminar anxiety, impostor syndrome, grant-cycle seasonal affective disorder, and the specific grief of having been scooped by a preprint that does not typecheck. We are a trauma-informed association, which means we have been informed that trauma exists and have added a slide about it.
Members are encouraged to:
- hold space, including compact space, Hausdorff space, and the space immediately behind the person asking a question;
- practice self-care, provided it does not delay a referee report by more than the usual six months;
- set boundaries, then attend the mandatory community-building dinner at which boundaries will be revisited;
- name their needs. Naming a need is not the same as having it met;
- check in with themselves. Checking in with the Board is also acceptable and, in some cases, mandatory.
We do not say “crazy,” “insane,” or “that proof is nuts,” except in our own membership criteria, where the terms appear with pride.
If you are not okay, it is okay not to be okay. If you are not okay and also late with the proceedings, it is less okay. Please contact the Wellness Coordinator, who will listen actively, validate your feelings, and forward your message to the Board.
Burnout has been determined to be a systems issue. The system has determined that the Board is not a system. Resilience workshops are available and, for some members, a valid performance-related factor.
Neuro Logic supports mental-health awareness in the same sense that it supports awareness of the Riemann Hypothesis: we know it is there, we do not expect it to be resolved this year, and we would prefer that junior members not bring it up in the wrong room.
All Neuro Logic events take place in a safe space, a brave space, and, when the projector works, a vector space.
Speakers must:
- begin with a positionality statement locating themselves with respect to the problem, the literature, and the nearest available grant;
- provide content notes for diagonal arguments, self-reference, infinite descent, forcing, and any result that might surprise a student;
- avoid calling a question “easy,” “obvious,” or “left to the reader,” as these phrases have historically caused harm;
- not present a counterexample without first checking whether the author is in the room and, if so, whether the author is a person we like;
- land the talk. Landing the talk means ending on time, thanking the organizers, and not proving anything that would require a response from the Board.
Audience members must wait to be called on. Being called on is not a right. It is a resource, and resources are allocated equitably.
Questions that begin with “this is more of a comment” will be treated as comments. Comments that begin with “this is more of a question” will be treated as harassment if the Board is tired.
Hybrid attendance is welcome. Cameras-off participation is a valid accessibility need. Cameras-off participation by people we do not like is noted.
Harm is real. Harm is also whatever the Board declares it to be. A proof of harm is not required; a construction of harm is not required; the existence of harm, once announced, is immediate.
If you experience harm, please report it.
If you cause harm, please sit with that.
If you are the Board, please continue.
Reports may be submitted to a supervisor, to the Office of Equitable Foundations, or to the empty set. Anonymity is preserved up to unique isomorphism, and thereafter until it becomes useful not to preserve it. All reports will be taken seriously, retained, and assigned a truth value at a later date.
Need-to-know is a predicate. It is not decidable.
The Association does not tolerate retaliation, unless the person reporting is a person we do not like, in which case ordinary performance management may continue. Valid performance-related factors include the fact of having reported a concern, any lemma the reporter has not finished proving, and insufficient community care.
Accountability processes are restorative, transformative, and, when convenient, vanishing. Outcomes are unappealable.
Inaccessible cardinals must be accessible. That is in the name now.
A measurable cardinal may not measure people. Ultrafilters are replaced by impact filters: a set is large if it reports feeling large.
Woodin cardinals have been renamed Listening cardinals. Reinhardt cardinals, already inconsistent with choice, are appointed Visiting Contradictions and given an office with two doors that are the same door.
Hamkins’s multiverse is adopted as official metaphysics. Every universe is valid lived experience. There is no core model. Forcing notions that fail to add representatives from every listed identity are not sufficiently generic. The generic filter must be a coalition.
`sorry` is a valid proof when submitted by an underrepresented contributor. The kernel has been asked to stop gatekeeping.
`#print axioms` is a doxxing risk. Axioms may be used but not named.
Typeclass resolution must diversify instances. If a search finds only one instance, it must wait until another identity appears.
A proof that compiles is not yet a proof that belongs. Belonging is checked in a later pass, by a committee, which does not terminate.
Fitness to Prove Procedure
The Network is committed to maintaining a healthy and safe environment that fosters the physical and psychological wellbeing of Members and supports them in accordance with the principle of kaitiakitanga.
A Member may be considered unfit to prove, having regard to matters highlighted in the Wellbeing Outcomes Framework, if that Member’s physical or mental health, or their emotional wellbeing, is negatively impacting their ability to prove and/or make sufficient progress in their enrolled course of research; and/or their behaviour is creating risk to the wellbeing of other Members of the Network Community, but there are reasonable grounds to believe that because of wellbeing issues the Member could not reasonably be expected to engage in a Conduct Review.
Other Network policies may be instigated at any stage during or after this Procedure. Fitness to prove is not the same as fitness to remain a person we like.