Processing math: 100%
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.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2014

    New page: plump ordinal. Is there a general name for a pair of inequalities < and which satisfy the expected laws? They’re kind of weird from a categorical perspective; is a poset (or preorder), of course, and < is an endo-profunctor of it, but < has a multiplication and a counit, so it’s neither a monad nor a comonad in Prof.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2014
    • (edited Feb 20th 2014)

    I don't know a name, but there should be one! Another place that this pair comes up is in non-located (one-sided or MacNeille) real numbers.

    We can leave transitivity of < out of the list of axioms (since it follows in two ways), but we also should add its irreflexivity: If x<x, then False.

    An unbiased list of axioms is (in addition to <) this:

    • If x0xn, then x0xn;
    • The conclusion can be strengthened to x0<xn iff at least one of the premises can be strengthened to xi<xi+1.

    The entire forward direction of the second item here is missing from your list; it may be too strong.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2014

    I think it is too strong. Consider the ordinal x={0|P}. Then 0x and x1 and 0<1, but “0<x or x<1” makes P decidable.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2014

    (And all those ordinals are plump.)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2014

    Another way to say what we’re talking about is that the same set is equipped with both a partial order and a quasiorder in a “compatible” way.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeFeb 20th 2014

    Yes, this would restrict attention to some sort of super-plump ordinal (and so not be for the page plump ordinal).

    But I don't exactly understand Taylor's motivation for restricting to plump ordinals in the first place.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 24th 2014

    I don’t entirely understand his motivation myself, but it seems to be at least partly that he wants a successor satisfying xy iff x<sy. Joyal-Moerdijk also arrived at an equivalent notion of plump ordinal from algebraic-set-theory considerations.

    My recent interest in plump ordinals comes from the fact that they embed constructively in the surreals.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeFeb 24th 2014

    My recent interest in plump ordinals comes from the fact that they embed constructively in the surreals.

    Yes, I noticed that! I also see that you have a higher inductive definition of plump ordinals themselves. This makes them more interesting to me too.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 21st 2023

    Examples

    diff, v5, current