Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexWrote [[cumulative hierarchy]], and edited some at [[ZFC]] (idea section, reference, related articles).

   Wrote cumulative hierarchy, and edited some at ZFC (idea section, reference, related articles).

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorspitters
   • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: spitters
   Format: MarkdownItexShould this be connected to [[algebraic set theory]]? This is really an algebraic construction.

   Should this be connected to algebraic set theory? This is really an algebraic construction.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexOh sure, I had meant to say something there but forgot; please feel free to jump in yourself (and thanks for the reminder).

   Oh sure, I had meant to say something there but forgot; please feel free to jump in yourself (and thanks for the reminder).

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexIt was only recently that I realised how much set theorists like the cumulative hierarchy, and this is one reason they (or at least some) find structural sets less than satisfying: it's not obvious that, say, ETCS comes with anything like being able to say "where the sets came from". I guess in AST it's different? One probably needs a form of Replacement to construct even for an arbitrary individual set a 'membership tree' in the structural style. For sets with injection to some P^n(N) there is no problem, I think.

   It was only recently that I realised how much set theorists like the cumulative hierarchy, and this is one reason they (or at least some) find structural sets less than satisfying: it’s not obvious that, say, ETCS comes with anything like being able to say “where the sets came from”. I guess in AST it’s different? One probably needs a form of Replacement to construct even for an arbitrary individual set a ’membership tree’ in the structural style. For sets with injection to some P^n(N) there is no problem, I think.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI have tried to say a few things about AST in [[cumulative hierarchy]]. This however is all from memory, as I am having difficulty tracking down my copy of Joyal-Moerdijk. David, I remember a recent MO question of yours in which I started a long comment thread on the meaning of "ontology" for ZF-ists, and it seems that yes, it's all about the cumulative hierarchy -- although I don't recall anyone actually using that phrase! (For me the most helpful replies were from François Dorais.) There are still a few mysteries for me from that thread, which I may get back to at some point. I see that Thomas Holder has helpfully added a related articles section; however, some of those nLab articles could use a little more love. :-)

   I have tried to say a few things about AST in cumulative hierarchy. This however is all from memory, as I am having difficulty tracking down my copy of Joyal-Moerdijk.

   David, I remember a recent MO question of yours in which I started a long comment thread on the meaning of “ontology” for ZF-ists, and it seems that yes, it’s all about the cumulative hierarchy – although I don’t recall anyone actually using that phrase! (For me the most helpful replies were from François Dorais.) There are still a few mysteries for me from that thread, which I may get back to at some point.

   I see that Thomas Holder has helpfully added a related articles section; however, some of those nLab articles could use a little more love. :-)

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItex> One probably needs a form of Replacement to construct even for an arbitrary individual set a ’membership tree’ in the structural style. What do you mean? Do you mean under what conditions is an ETCS-set isomorphic to the set of nodes of a rigid wellfounded tree (or whatever)? I think the answer to that question is "always", because ETCS includes AC so that every set can be well-ordered and is hence isomorphic to a von Neumann ordinal.

   One probably needs a form of Replacement to construct even for an arbitrary individual set a ’membership tree’ in the structural style.

   What do you mean? Do you mean under what conditions is an ETCS-set isomorphic to the set of nodes of a rigid wellfounded tree (or whatever)? I think the answer to that question is “always”, because ETCS includes AC so that every set can be well-ordered and is hence isomorphic to a von Neumann ordinal.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2015
   • (edited Aug 3rd 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItex@Mike whoops! I must have been thinking of more general toposes as models for set theory... (I'd looked at the relevant section of the Baby Elephant recently) :-S @Todd - yes, it was that discussion that made me realise this. The fact that ZFC sets are exactly _subsets_ of some set constructed so far is still far more rigid than the case for a structural approach: one merely has a monomorphism $X \hookrightarrow P^\alpha(\mathbb{N})$. So I guess a material set theorist would ask: "where did the domain of that mono come from?" But working up in an isomorphism-invariant way we just have to bear with that, as it were. Perhaps thinking of monos as elements in the powerset $P^{\alpha+1}(\mathbb{N})$ (say we've chosen an initial object $1$ once and for all: one choice instead of many) we get a bit tighter... Also: there's the cumulative hierarchy constructed in the HoTT Book.

   @Mike whoops! I must have been thinking of more general toposes as models for set theory… (I’d looked at the relevant section of the Baby Elephant recently) :-S

   @Todd - yes, it was that discussion that made me realise this. The fact that ZFC sets are exactly subsets of some set constructed so far is still far more rigid than the case for a structural approach: one merely has a monomorphism $X \hookrightarrow P^\alpha(\mathbb{N})$. So I guess a material set theorist would ask: “where did the domain of that mono come from?” But working up in an isomorphism-invariant way we just have to bear with that, as it were. Perhaps thinking of monos as elements in the powerset $P^{\alpha+1}(\mathbb{N})$ (say we’ve chosen an initial object $1$ once and for all: one choice instead of many) we get a bit tighter…

   Also: there’s the cumulative hierarchy constructed in the HoTT Book.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2015
   • (edited Aug 3rd 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItex@Mike actually, I don't think I do mean that. Yes, one gets an isomorphism to the nodes of a rigid wellfounded tree from a well-ordering, but there is a massive amount of freedom. In particular, one might as well always choose an initial ordinal. What I'm thinking of is whether given any set $X$, one can show the existence of some ordinal $\alpha$ (with no choices, or at least none explicitly or implicitly well-ordering $X$) such that $X \leq P^\alpha(\mathbb{N})$. Such a result would not rely on Choice in the same way. Whether only well-orderable $X$, in the absence of choice, admit such an embedding (it obviously doesn't a priori well-order $X$), is an interesting (to me at least) problem. Compare the problem of constructing something like $L$ inside a topos: its definition in material set theory doesn't require choice. Cf also [A cumulative hierarchy of sets for constructive set theory](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/malq.201200100)

   @Mike actually, I don’t think I do mean that. Yes, one gets an isomorphism to the nodes of a rigid wellfounded tree from a well-ordering, but there is a massive amount of freedom. In particular, one might as well always choose an initial ordinal. What I’m thinking of is whether given any set $X$, one can show the existence of some ordinal $\alpha$ (with no choices, or at least none explicitly or implicitly well-ordering $X$) such that $X \leq P^\alpha(\mathbb{N})$. Such a result would not rely on Choice in the same way. Whether only well-orderable $X$, in the absence of choice, admit such an embedding (it obviously doesn’t a priori well-order $X$), is an interesting (to me at least) problem.

   Compare the problem of constructing something like $L$ inside a topos: its definition in material set theory doesn’t require choice.

   Cf also A cumulative hierarchy of sets for constructive set theory

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItex@David, do you just want to work in ETCS-minus-AC? I wouldn't think $X\le P^\alpha(\mathbb{N})$ would imply well-orderability of $X$; doesn't it follow in ZF from the axiom of foundation?

   @David, do you just want to work in ETCS-minus-AC? I wouldn’t think $X\le P^\alpha(\mathbb{N})$ would imply well-orderability of $X$; doesn’t it follow in ZF from the axiom of foundation?

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2015
    • PermaLink
    Author: DavidRoberts
    Format: MarkdownItex@Mike ETCS-AC is as good as any to start thinking about such a problem. >I wouldn't think $X\le P^\alpha(\mathbb{N})$ would imply well-orderability of $X$ No, I didn't think so. The trick is finding an ordinal such that it works. And, of course, one may not be able to use $\alpha \geq \omega$, since $P^\omega(\mathbb{N})$ may not exist in the topos: some Replacement may be needed. You're probably right about Foundation, it sounds familiar. And all this is only at the level of musing, I'm not actively pursuing a result.

    @Mike ETCS-AC is as good as any to start thinking about such a problem.

    I wouldn’t think $X\le P^\alpha(\mathbb{N})$ would imply well-orderability of $X$

    No, I didn’t think so. The trick is finding an ordinal such that it works. And, of course, one may not be able to use $\alpha \geq \omega$, since $P^\omega(\mathbb{N})$ may not exist in the topos: some Replacement may be needed.

    You’re probably right about Foundation, it sounds familiar.

    And all this is only at the level of musing, I’m not actively pursuing a result.