Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeDec 8th 2020
   • (edited Dec 8th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexI have a student working on meta-metaphysics, which is where you reflect on how metaphysics is done, and part of the debate he's describing has been governed over many centuries by responses to the opposition between the idea that Being is univocal and the idea that there are different modes of Being. There are objects, there are events, there are numbers, etc. Does the 'are' refer to one concept Being, or should we think about different kinds of Being, Being an object, Being a number, etc. Looking to filter this through the framework of type theory, and in the spirit of the kind of unity of opposites we see in cohesion and set elements as "distinct, but indistinguishable", described at [Cohesive Toposes and Cantor's "lauter Einsen"](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Cohesive+Toposes+and+Cantor%27s+%22lauter+Einsen%22), I was wondering about what is the 'same' in judgements $a: A$, $b:B$. I guess it's that they sit above $\ast: 1$. Any map $x: 1 \to X$ is composable with the terminal $X \to 1$ to give the map $1 \to 1$. So there's what we discuss as 'determinate being', all types located in a cylinder, $0 \to X \to 1$, and then the thought that any element of a type appears as an extension of $\ast: 1$. Or something like that. By the way, I couldn't get [[Cohesive Toposes and Cantor's "lauter Einsen"]] to work properly.

   I have a student working on meta-metaphysics, which is where you reflect on how metaphysics is done, and part of the debate he’s describing has been governed over many centuries by responses to the opposition between the idea that Being is univocal and the idea that there are different modes of Being. There are objects, there are events, there are numbers, etc. Does the ’are’ refer to one concept Being, or should we think about different kinds of Being, Being an object, Being a number, etc.

   Looking to filter this through the framework of type theory, and in the spirit of the kind of unity of opposites we see in cohesion and set elements as “distinct, but indistinguishable”, described at Cohesive Toposes and Cantor’s “lauter Einsen”, I was wondering about what is the ’same’ in judgements $a: A$, $b:B$.

   I guess it’s that they sit above $\ast: 1$. Any map $x: 1 \to X$ is composable with the terminal $X \to 1$ to give the map $1 \to 1$.

   So there’s what we discuss as ’determinate being’, all types located in a cylinder, $0 \to X \to 1$, and then the thought that any element of a type appears as an extension of $\ast: 1$. Or something like that.

   By the way, I couldn’t get

       [[Cohesive Toposes and Cantor's "lauter Einsen"]] 
   

   to work properly.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeDec 8th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexOk, so I guess one could speak of pointed types, and the terminal such.

   Ok, so I guess one could speak of pointed types, and the terminal such.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 8th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexJust to note that for pointed objects the terminal object is also initial, hence is a [[zero object]], and so then the inclusion functor has coinciding left and right adjoint, which makes it an adjoint cylinder for "infinitesimal cohesion" or the like.

   Just to note that for pointed objects the terminal object is also initial, hence is a zero object, and so then the inclusion functor has coinciding left and right adjoint, which makes it an adjoint cylinder for “infinitesimal cohesion” or the like.