Not signed in (Sign In)

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

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 definitions 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 k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum 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

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

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2010
    • (edited Sep 9th 2010)

    However, if any finite set greater than 1 is choice, or if every 2-indexed set is projective, then the logic must be classical (see excluded middle for a proof).

    I copied the above from finite set. I don’t like the phrase ’set greater than 1’, even though I know what it means. I gather we can’t say ’set with cardinality greater then 1’, because that assumes that cardinality is well-defined and perhaps is circular. What can we say instead of the existing phrase?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2010

    “with more than one element”?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2010

    Well, I feel it’s getting deep into ’Toby territory’ here, seeing as the finite set in question may have only one element but still not be isomorphic to 1. Say 1a for a1 a subterminal object. Unless I’m imagining levels of constructivism beyond the really there…

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2010

    I gather we can’t say ’set with cardinality greater then 1’, because that assumes that cardinality is well-defined and perhaps is circular.

    The only really sensible basic definition of a cardinal number is that a cardinal number is a set, with two cardinal numbers equal iff the two sets are bijective; any other definition may be useful but only if it is equivalent to this one. So cardinality is well-defined even if cardinal numbers might not be totally ordered, or if the surjection SetCard might not split, etc.

    All of which is my way of saying that, even deep in my territory, I countenance using “cardinality” here if it helps you understand. But I probably didn’t use that word myself (assuming that I wrote the current wording at all, which I haven’t checked) because I expect readers of the nLab to interpret “bigger” in terms of cardinality anyway.

    However, nothing wrong with clearer wording, so I’ve changed it.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2010

    Even constructively, a finite set always has a well-defined cardinality that is a natural number, essentially by definition of “finite.” If U is a nontrivial subterminal, then 1+U is not generally finite in this sense. It’s true that if our constructive logic is the internal logic of a topos, then 1+U has only one global element, but one cannot assert in the constructive logic itself that “1+U has only one element.”

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2010
    • (edited Sep 10th 2010)

    Actually I was concerned about the use of the word ’bigger’

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2010

    Fair enough; without choice (and especially without excluded middle), there are a few different ways that ‘bigger’ can be interepreted. So that’s why I changed to a more precise wording.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2010

    Thanks!