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 finite 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 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 sheaves 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.
    • CommentAuthorAsgarJ
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2013
    • (edited Apr 4th 2013)
    Let C be an elementary topos with the following properties:

    (i) the subobjects of each object of C form a complete boolean algebra,
    (ii) C has a natural numbers object,
    (iii) C is generated by the subobjects of its terminal object.

    [the conjunction of (i) and (iii) imply that C satisfies the axiom of choice]

    Does every result in ordinary mathematics hold in C? If yes, what does this exactly mean? Does this mean that there exists an equivalent formulation of this result in C involving the language of C, and this result can be proved within C, or does this mean that one can "embed" the result from ordinary mathematics into C, and this result can be proved in C? I would be grateful if you could provide me with a reference in case the answer to the first question is yes.

    Thank you,
    Asgar
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2013

    Can you briefly explain why (i)&(iii) imply AC?

    Assuming that, there is a way in which every result of ordinary mathematics holds in CC. Although CC need not be well-pointed, it is (like every topos) internally well-pointed, and it satisfies the internal axiom of choice (since this is implied by the external axiom of choice), so internally it’s a model of ETCSETCS. And one definition of ‘ordinary mathematics’ is whatever can be formalised in ETCSETCS.

    I don’t know that there’s a reference for this definition of ‘ordinary mathematics’, although there is literature where people tout ETCSETCS and say, using various terminology, that essentially all of mathematics can be formalised in it. Ultimately, there is no accepted definition of that term.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorAsgarJ
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2013
    • (edited Apr 4th 2013)
    This is Proposition 8, p. 276, Lane and Moerdijk "Sheaves in Geometry and Logic".

    The topos C under consideration is not well-pointed. What does it mean do be a INTERNAL model of ETCS?
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2013

    In at least one sense the claim is false: for example, it is possible that the “real” Set\mathbf{Set} satisfies the continuum hypothesis, but by Cohen forcing, one can build a (Grothendieck) topos satisfying your conditions (i) – (iii) in which the continuum hypothesis fails. Thus what is true in the sorts of toposes you are considering is not merely a function of what is true in the “real” set-theoretic universe.

    As for “ordinary mathematics”, Friedman [1971] showed that Borel determinacy (a theorem of ZFC) is not provable in Zermelo set theory with choice. It is known that the category of sets in a model of Zermelo set theory with choice is a model of ETCS and hence is an elementary topos satisfying your conditions. Of course, you might protest that Borel determinacy is not “ordinary mathematics”; personally, I am inclined to agree: I don’t even understand what it says! (That probably says more about my undergraduate education than anything important.)

    As for being internally well pointed: for all objects XX, YY in an elementary topos, the following formula

    (xX 1.fx=gx)f=g(\forall x \in X^1 . f \circ x = g \circ x) \to f = g

    where ff and gg are free variables of type Y XY^X, is true in the internal logic of that topos.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2013
    • (edited Apr 4th 2013)

    Hey Zhen Lin,

    plenty of good replies. (I also liked your recent comment on toposes here on MO a lot!)

    Once apon a time we had this idea that we would not be like MO and other sites here and just throw away good replies just like that, but that instead whenever a little gem of insight was obtained, we’d archive it on the nLab. Or even reply by writing something in an nLab article in the first place.The point being that this way the answer is contained better in a wider web of material and more likely to be found by and be useful to others later.

    In short, what I am trying to say is: feel invited to write some of the good stuff that you are posting into some nLab entry or other!

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorAsgarJ
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2013
    • (edited Apr 4th 2013)
    Thank you for your comments!
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2013

    @Zhen

    the “real” set-theoretic universe

    what is that?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2013

    Whatever it means in ordinary mathematical practice. It doesn’t have to be ZFC, but it had better support what we do!

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2013

    So the relevant question (as I see it) about Zhen Lin's ‘“real” set-theoretic universe’ is whether ordinary mathematics depends on the truth of CH etc. (And I would say No, but some set theorists, at least, might disagree.)