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 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

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.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2012

    Although there is a standard meaning of ‘finite’ in constructive mathematics, it’s helpful to have a way to indicate that one really means this and is not just sloppily writing ‘finite’ in a situation where it is correct classically, without having to make a circumlocution like ‘finite (even in constructive mathematics)’. Based on Mike’s notation at finite set and drawing an analogy with ‘KK-finite’, I’ve invented the term ‘FF-finite’. (So now the circumlocution is simply ‘finite (FF-finite)’ or ‘finite (F-finite)’, assuming that one wishes to relegate constructivism to parenthetical remarks.)

    I’ve added this to finite set, added redirects, and used the new abbreviated circumlocution at dual vector space.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 30th 2012

    The notation K-finite and K˜\tilde{K}-finite are not mine, they came from the Elephant.

    Having a specific name for “really truly finite” is a good idea; thanks! Although “F-finite” isn’t obviously suggestive to me of its meaning. I don’t object to F-finite, but what about something like “cardinally finite” to indicate that it has a finite (natural number) cardinality?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorSridharRamesh
    • CommentTimeJan 30th 2012
    • (edited Jan 30th 2012)

    \mathbb{N}-finite would be great, if it didn’t sound so much like “infinite”…

    If I were the name dictator, I might use “nat-finite”, “subfinite” (as people do), “quofinite”, and “subquofinite”, all the better to indicate what the names mean even to those who have not heard them before. But, perhaps other people would find these names silly.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2012

    @Mike: I attribute the notation F(S)F(S) and F˜(S)\tilde{F}(S) from finite set#Finitist to you.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2012

    According to the history, you were the one who introduced them in revision 4.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2012

    Wow, I could have sworn that I wrote that passage but that you later edited it to introduce that notation. I guess that it’s all me, then! (The ‘F’s, that is.)

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2012

    Unless I was circumventing the nLab’s fancy authentication system to impersonate you when I edited the page, I guess. (I wasn’t.)

    Any thoughts about “cardinally finite”?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2012

    Any thoughts about “cardinally finite”?

    To mean what? (All of these standards of ‘finite’ are isomorphism-invariant properties of sets and therefore also properties of cardinal numbers.)

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2012

    That’s true, of course, but somehow I would still be very surprised to hear the cardinality of a K-finite set referred to as a “finite number”. I feel like there’s a difference in that F-finiteness can be defined in terms of cardinal numbers (assuming the axiom of infinity, there’s a canonical set of representatives for the F-finite cardinal numbers, and a set can be defined to be F-finite if it is bijective to one of those), which is not true (so far as I know) for any of the other kinds of finiteness. So saying that that sort of finiteness is “characterized by cardinality” seems a bit more valid.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorSridharRamesh
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2012

    Why not use a name like “nat-finite” (or “natural number-ly finite” or whatever) if the intent is to highlight the connection with natural numbers?

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2012

    @ Mike: No, one might not refer to the set as a number, but if one speaks of the set’s cardinal number, then that number is a cardinal number just like any other cardinal number. But it’s not a natural number (aka an FF-finite cardinal number).

    I sometimes think about truth values as (F˜\tilde{F}-finite, not KK-finite) numbers.

    Another term that I might have seen (or might have made up myself, as Google suggests) is ‘Bishop-finite’ for FF-finite. (One might even use ‘BB’ instead of ‘FF’.)

    I dislike ‘nat-finite’ for using an abbreviation, but ‘NN-finite’ might work.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTom Leinster
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2012

    I can’t help pronouncing “FF-finite” as “f-finite”, as if I had a stutter. And, for that matter, when people write “oo-category”, what I hear in my head is “ooh-category”: a category that makes you go “ooh”.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2012

    I added a section “properties and relationships” to finite set, along with an alternative formulation of Dedekind-finiteness (pointed out to me by Ross Tate) which is classically equivalent, but probably distinct constructively.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2012

    Since I introduced all of the ‘FF’ stuff, I feel empowered to get rid of it. The term ‘Bishop-finite’ may not exist in the literature, but it makes as much sense as ‘Kuratowski-finite’, and I would like to promote it. So I’ve changed all of the ‘FF’s to ‘BB’s (and put in some explicit references to Bishop’s name).

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2012

    Is “as much sense as Kuratowski-finite” a lot of sense?

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2012

    Well, “Kuratowski-finite” is unambiguous and derives from a definition written down by Kuratowski. “Bishop-finite” works the same way.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2012

    Was Bishop really a first or notable person to have written down that definition?

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 10th 2012

    Certainly notable; his book was notable and had wide impact. His school was (is) influential and adopted his meaning of ‘finite’ (but not, thankfully, his meaning of ‘subfinite’, which was Kuratowski-finite), in contrast to topologically motivated constructivists, who used Kuratowski’s definition (since it essentially means compact).

    I would be surprised if he was the first to write it down. Obviously not the first, but probably not even the first with the intention that it be interpreted constructively. I could ask on the constructive-news mailing list about the history.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 10th 2012

    Hmm, okay.