Not signed in (Sign In)

# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Sign in using OpenID

## Site Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTime7 days ago

I’m not sure that the definition on this page is correct. Despite how wrong it seems to a category theorist, I think the adjective “complete” in “cpo” usually refers only to a countable sort of completeness. According to wikipedia, a “cpo” can mean at least three different things dependent on context, but “never” a partial order that’s actually complete as a category (i.e. a complete lattice).

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorAlizter
• CommentTime7 days ago

I’ve never heard of cpos, but only $\omega$-cpos which are used to model recursion in simply typed lambda calculus.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorSam Staton
• CommentTime7 days ago

I think people use “cpo” to mean either “$\omega$-cpo” or “dcpo”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it used to mean complete lattice. The weird thing is that “cpo” doesn’t seem to appear in the given reference, the AHS book.

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTime6 days ago

Changed to say that cpos are either dcpos or $\omega$-cpos.

Add your comments
• Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
• To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

• (Help)