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).

nLab > nLab General Discussions: ludics, locus solum, etc.

Bottom of Page

1 to 4 of 4

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2014

    Rather than derail the thread on particles any further with stuff about Girard’s projects, I thought I’d start a new thread.

    I just discovered by accident an old Café thread started by David C. on Locus Solum. Unfortunately it didn’t get very far. I did relearn that (allegedly) Lawvere once punched out Girard. I won’t relate other gossip I’ve heard about Girard.

    Anyway, if anyone has something more to say (on ludics for example), please be my guest. There’s also a GoI thread here started by Urs.

  2. Back when I was writing my thesis, I found Locus Solum to be helpful, although in retrospect this had a lot more to do with drawing inspiration from Girard’s rhetorical energy than with reusing any of his mathematical development. In particular, one idea which Girard did not invent but which is taken seriously in ludics is the concept of focalization. The “desseins” of ludics are essentially a frightening notation for (cut-free, axiom-free) focalized proofs of (affine) MALL.

    As noted by Tom Hirschowitz in that n-café thread, Girard starts from an “untyped” presentation (i.e., desseins only have an arity rather than a sequent of formulas as a conclusion) because he wants to reconstruct types via a realizability interpretation (as sets of desseins closed under biorthogonality). As you suggested in that thread, though, I don’t think there is anything particularly uncategorical about this, and that the right way to understand it is in fibrational terms.

    Though Girard does not point this out, under Curry-Howard, focalized proofs correspond to programs in continuation-passing style. CPS is a fundamental idea from computer science for analyzing evaluation order, and this gives one formal sense in which ludics is “aware of time” in ways that Girard’s prior semantical investigations of classical linear logic were not—although certainly continuations were already part of the tradition of game semantics (cf. the Appendix entries on “Game semantics”, “Polarity”, and “Time in logic”).

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2014

    Noam, I was hoping you’d have something to say! I would like to ponder this more, but these seem to be really very helpful comments indeed. Are (at least some of) these comments explored in print?

  4. Todd Trimble wrote:

    Are (at least some of) these comments explored in print?

    Although I prefer that you burn my thesis rather than read it (with a hat tip to Conor McBride), you might enjoy these notes to a talk on “polarity in proof theory and programming” that I gave last summer. It’s very high-level, just trying to point to some of the ideas dancing around “ludics” (in a broad sense) which I think are important. Though the talk does not mention categories, it was informed by long-running work with Paul-André Melliès, especially some ideas about monoidal closed bifibrations which we finally put into print in October but which are still very much in development.

1 to 4 of 4

  1.