Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Without a link most people won’t know which reference #1 is referring to.
It was in the discussion of the page phenomenology (physics).
Links to general URLs are obtained by typing
[Linktext](url)
For instance
[the reference Todd was talking about](https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/1610/phenomenology-physics/?Focus=15022#Comment_15022)
gives pointer to
the reference Todd was talking about
(Notice that each nForum comment has a “Source” button on its top right, which shows how it has been coded.)
Thanks
This is edit in my bed with my phone, sorry for these forgettings. Also, I don’t think to keep the good habits when transitioning from maths to philosophy. The nForum is an unusual place, there is just all fundamental subjects together!
This is edit in my bed with my phone
That’s where Descartes did some of his best work.
The nForum is an unusual place, there is just all fundamental subjects together!
Thanks for prompting some philosophy entries. The longest such entry by far, as you may have seen, is Science of Logic. I still find in intriguing that there’s this marriage between type theory and category theory (relation between type theory and category theory), where the former is steeped in constructive, subjective thought (“I know because…”), as witnessed by Husserl’s influence on Martin-Löf, and the latter as a study of objective structure. Looking at the page objective and subjective logic, it seems we might say more about attempts to reconcile them.
If I understand, subjective logic is more about the proofs and objective logic about the theorems on a definite structure ? If I assume that, then the completeness theorem of Gödel proves that you can always access to the objective structure by your subjective thinking. Maybe, the relation between type theory and category theory is of the same order. If you have a categorical structure, say the structure of -autonomous category, you can generate the free -autonomous category on some objects by taking as morphisms the proofs of linear logic with atoms these objects (more precisely letters which denote these objects). Your proofs generating the free -autonomous category means that these proofs allows you to access to all the objective truth about -autonomous categories, this is thus another kind of completeness, but for denotational semantics which means that you don’t wonder directly about the truth of some propositions but you look at all the morphisms and your proof are models for these morphisms.
Thus, I think these two types of completeness are maybe relevant to this issue?
But I realize that I’ve not really understood what is the objective logic. I’m reading the page objective and subjective logic to understand.
1 to 10 of 10