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

Discussion Tag Cloud

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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2012
    • (edited Sep 26th 2012)

    I found the organization at Zorn’s lemma a bit rough, so I have tried to smoothen it out a bit

    For instance

    • at one point it had suddenly said “proof of the converse” without a clear statement of the other direction having appeared before. I have created two Theorem-environments and tried to make the statements clearer.

    • the Idea-section had started out saying that “Zorn’s lemma is a trick”. I think that’s misleading or at least misses the important nature of the thing, so I rewrote that and expanded a bit.

    But the foundationalists among you please check!

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2016

    Coming back to Zorn’s lemma, I found that its proof from AC (which was mainly my doing) was inadequate, so I fixed it up. If anyone knows where such a proof appears in the literature, I’d like to hear it. I thought when I first wrote it up here a few years ago, I had gotten it from Lang’s Algebra, but checking this now it looks rather different, and now I have no idea where it originally came from.

    I also wrote up some stuff there on the Bourbaki-Witt fixed point theorem, this time following Lang for sure.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2016
    • (edited Jan 25th 2016)

    I put in a little more detail about when B-W holds, namely in any topos with a geometric morphism to SetSet, together with a reference to the Bauer-Lmsdaine paper where this is proved, and which Peter linked to in the n-Café discussion.

    For reference, and for perhaps sorting out later, there seems to be two versions of Andrej’s paper: in the Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics (MFPS 2009) proceedings in Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science in 2009 and in the Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics (MFPS XXV) proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science in 2012. The papers are different lengths, so I don’t know what is going on.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2016

    Ah, thanks!

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)