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-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity grothendieck 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory 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 string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2015

    I just noticed that Randall Holmes claims to have a proof of the consistency of NF. Does anyone know more about this?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorJohn Dougherty
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2015
    • (edited Sep 1st 2015)

    There was some discussion of the result on the FOM mailing list in 2013, then again in July last year.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2015

    See also this MO question.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2015

    This has been going on for ages. My guess is that a portion of the difficulty may be arising from the transtranslation from an underlying structural set theory construction to a material interpretation, without never seeing the structural version.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 2nd 2015

    Thanks! I added a comment to New Foundations.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 2nd 2015

    Where is it proved that NFSetNFSet is not Cartesian closed?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeSep 2nd 2015

    At least two places: 1 2.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 2nd 2015
    • (edited Sep 3rd 2015)

    From McClarty’s article, he is assuming that a pairing operation gives rise to a cartesian product as well as a category with arrows the entire functional relations using said pairing operation. Why not consider the pairing operation as defining a non-cartesian monoidal product and aim for just a closed monoidal category? I guess dropping Cartesianness violates assumption 1 in McClarty’s proof and assumption 2 in Forster’s proof, so neither apply to show the internal hom can’t exist.

    Clearly we then have to work harder to get existence of limits of various sorts. Also, some binary products may exist, if not all of them.

    EDIT: Hmm, the recent talk “A Monoidal Closed Category in NF” by Gorbow [1] seems to establish this result for a slightly larger category of relations, with Hom(A,B)Hom(A,B) relations on ABA\cup B (I guess) restricting to functions ABA\to B as relations from AA to BB.

    [1] This seems to be his university page, but not sure how up to date this is. It seems he is now in private industry

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 3rd 2015

    I added the references Zhen Lin supplied to the page NF. It might be worth typing up a sketch of at least McLarty’s proof, since it is very short.