Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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 beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry 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-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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-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).
  1. (Hi, I’m new)

    I added some examples relating too simple to be simple to the idea of unbiased definitions. The point is that we often define things to be simple whenever they are not a non-trivial (co)product of two objects, and we can extend this definition to cover the “to simple to be simple case” by removing the word “two”. The trivial object is often the empty (co)product. If we had been using an unbiased definition we would have automatically covered this case from the beginning.

    I also noticed that the page about the empty space referred to the naive definition of connectedness as being

    “a space is connected if it cannot be partitioned into disjoint nonempty open subsets”

    but this misses out the word “two” and so is accidentally giving the sophisticated definition! I’ve now corrected it to make it wrong (as it were).

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2015

    I had to go to empty space and look at what you did to fully understand your comment, but now that I see it: good catch!

    I have this occasional nagging feeling that unbiased definitions ought to be expanded in some ways, because it seems to me the process of removing bias comes in many guises. The general idea of using a Lawvere theory instead of a traditional signature for, say, the theory of groups, is a way of removing bias, by “saturating” the class of operations. Similarly, there is a way of defining Boolean algebra in an unbiased way, as a product-preserving functor from finite non-empty sets to SetSet, that removes the persistent bias that Boolean algebras are intrinsically about the number 22. But I’m somewhat undecided what I want to say.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2015

    Welcome Oscar! I like your additions.

    I would also generalize “bias” from what is said at bias to cover cases when the generating operations have arities other than 0 and 2. For instance, the usual definition of heap is biased, although its basic operation is ternary.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2015
    • (edited Sep 29th 2015)

    a product-preserving functor from finite non-empty sets to Set

    doesn’t this then turn a theorem (baby Stone duality) into a definition? (Not that this is bad: the theorem then becomes that the definition follows from the biased definition)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2015

    Let’s see: I understand baby Stone duality as the assertion that the category of finite Boolean algebras (including by the way the terminal one) is dual to the category of finite sets (including the empty one). There are relations between baby Stone duality and what I’m saying here, but I tend to think of it slightly differently, and the relation is not quite obvious. I’ll try to point to something on this relation in a minute, but first here’s how I think of things. Or, if you like you can skip to the end where I touch on the relation.

    The usual Lawvere theory for Boolean algebras is, via baby Stone duality, equivalent to the category of finite sets of cardinality 2 n2^n (inasmuch as f.g. free Boolean algebras are the ones of cardinality 2 2 n2^{2^n}). Let me denote it Fin 2 Fin_{2^\bullet}. The Cauchy completion of Fin 2 Fin_{2^\bullet} is the category Fin +Fin_+ of nonempty finite sets.

    The following result is easily proven, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it in a book:

    Proposition: For any category with products CC, the Cauchy completion C¯\bar{C} also has products and the inclusion i:CC¯i: C \to \bar{C} preserves them. Restriction along ii induces an equivalence Prod(C¯,Set)Prod(C,Set)Prod(\bar{C}, Set) \to Prod(C, Set).

    Applying this to C=Fin 2 C = Fin_{2^\bullet} and C¯=Fin +\bar{C} = Fin_+, this gives the result that the category of Boolean algebras is equivalent to Prod(Fin +,Set)Prod(Fin_+, Set).

    We could go in reverse, too, and say Prod(Fin +,Set)Prod(Fin_+, Set) is equivalent to Prod(Fin 3 ,Set)Prod(Fin_{3^\bullet}, Set), by the same proposition. This would lead to a presentation of Boolean algebras in terms of a somewhat different Lawvere theory biased towards 33. i.e., there would be not 2 2 n2^{2^n} definable nn-ary operations on “underlying sets” of Boolean algebras, but 3 3 n3^{3^n} many. What I am suggesting here is that there are many different underlying-set functors BoolSetBool \to Set to choose from, depending on one’s bias. You could even see a Boolean algebra BB not as a one-sorted object, but as multisorted: for example for each prime pp, the pp-sort U p(B)U_p(B) is the value of BB = product-preserving functor Fin +SetFin_{+} \to Set evaluated at {1,2,,p}\{1, 2, \ldots, p\}.

    I wrote some of this out at Boolean algebra; look for the section on the unbiased definition.

    There is also an unbiased definition of ultrafilter. Let i +:Fin +Seti_+: Fin_+ \to Set be the inclusion, corresponding to the Boolean algebra we normally call 22. For any set XX, the product-preserving functor Set(X,i +):Fin +SetSet(X, i_+ -): Fin_+ \to Set corresponds to the power set Boolean algebra PXP X; we could also denote this as () X:Fin +Set(-)^X: Fin_+ \to Set. Then define an ultrafilter as a natural transformation () X() 1(-)^X \to (-)^1. This is related to Tom Leinster’s articles on ultrafilters via codensity monads; it’s briefly touched upon here.

    Among the observations there is that, passing to the 33-biased case (and letting M 3M_3 denote the Lawvere theory for that case), there are enough unary operations = functions 333 \to 3 that an ultrafilter on XX can equivalently be described as not only as a 3-biased Boolean algebra map 3 X33^X \to 3 (which sounds complicated), but more simply as a function 3 X33^X \to 3 which respects the canonical action under the monoid Fin +(3,3)Fin_+(3, 3). This boils down to a characterization of ultrafilters mentioned by Tom here: an ultrafilter on XX is a collection 𝒰\mathcal{U} of subsets of XX such that for every partition of X=X 1+X 2+X 3X = X_1 + X_2 + X_3 into 33 nonempty subsets, exactly one of the X iX_i belongs to 𝒰\mathcal{U}.

    Lawvere discusses similar themes here, mentioning (in somewhat obscure style) that existence of a nonprincipal 𝒰\mathcal{U} satisfying the analogous property but with 33 replaced by \mathbb{N} is equivalent to the existence of a measurable cardinal.

    Back to Stone duality and the relation to what I just described: since it’s late here, let me just direct you to the middle of a Café conversation we had about this, starting with an elegant observation by Richard Garner here. Basically, yeah, (baby) Stone duality gives you that the category of finite sets (including the empty one) is dual to the category of f.p. Boolean algebras, and BoolBool is thus equivalent to the category of finite-limit-preserving functors FinSetFin \to Set. On the other hand, I talked about finite-product-preserving functors Fin +SetFin_+ \to Set on the category of nonempty finite sets. So seeing these are equivalent (directly) takes a little more work, and that’s where the conversation was going.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2015

    @Todd - thanks for clarifying!

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorKarol Szumiło
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2015

    Oscar, maybe I’m being dense, but when you include arbitrary finite (co)products, you also include the unary ones. So if you say

    nn is prime if whenever n= i=1 ka in=\prod_{i=1}^k a_i we have n=a in=a_i for some ii

    this includes k=1k=1 which would say that every number is prime. Did I misunderstand something?

  2. It’s certainly true that whenever we write any number as the product of one thing then it’s equal to that thing. But I think my definition if okay because I’m requiring that it hold for all kk. Perhaps my wording is slightly ambiguous, what I mean to say is that

    nn is prime” \Leftrightarrowk(a 1,,a k):n= i=1 ka i(i:n=a i)\forall k \forall (a_1,\dots,a_k) :\quad n=\prod_{i=1}^k a_i \Rightarrow (\exists i:n=a_i)

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorKarol Szumiło
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2015

    Right, I am being dense. That’s actually a really nice observation, it always bothered me that I didn’t know a clean way of stating such definitions.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2015

    This is a small point, but I think the definition is better phrased using divisibility instead of equality: k(a 1,,a k):n i=1 ka i(i:na i)\forall k \forall (a_1,\dots,a_k) :\; n\mid\prod_{i=1}^k a_i \Rightarrow (\exists i:n\mid a_i). That way it generalizes better to prime ideals.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorOscar_Cunningham
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2015
    • (edited Sep 30th 2015)

    I agree that divisibility is nicer to use than equality. EDIT: Or at least that it’s nicer when thinking about rings. Is there an analogue of divisibility when thinking about whether spaces are connected?

    What to do about 00? Under the above definition it’s prime in \mathbb{Z}. (In fact we could use “00 is prime” as a joke definition of “integral domain”). But if you think about the divisibility preorder of \mathbb{Z}, 00 is sitting at the top whereas the primes are all at the bottom just above ±1\pm 1. So it seems like 00 is genuinely different from the primes and shouldn’t be one. Is there a nice way to exclude it?

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2015
    • (edited Sep 30th 2015)

    One way might be to say “if (mn)=(p)(m n) = (p), then exactly one of (m),(n)(m), (n) equals (p)(p).

    Sheesh, hopefully I finally got that right after a few edits. :-P

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2015

    Not quite right :) still the quotation mark is opened but not closed :)

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorKarol Szumiło
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2015

    Oscar, the analogue of the divisibility condition for spaces says that a space XX is connected if and only if the representable functor Top(X,)\mathrm{Top}(X, -) preserves (finite) coproducts.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2015

    Well, 00 ought also to be prime if we want every integer to be expressible as a product of primes and units.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2015

    To be fair, (0)(0) is a prime ideal, even if 00 is not irreducible.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorColin Tan
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2015
    The concrete definition given at the page on linear independence seems not to work for an empty collection of vectors.
    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2015
    • (edited Oct 2nd 2015)

    Colin, I don’t see a problem. At linearly independent set it says

    The subset SS is linearly independent if, conversely, every a i=0 Ka_i = 0_K whenever the sum

    i=1 na iv i=0 V; \sum_{i=1}^n a_i v_i = 0_V ;

    otherwise, SS is linearly dependent.

    (Here the v iv_i are tacitly distinct elements of SS.) From the statement, it is vacuously true that the empty set is a linearly independent set. For it is vacuously true that every scalar a i=0a_i = 0, since there are no scalars to speak of in an empty sum of scalar multiples on the left side of the displayed equation.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorColin Tan
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2015

    There is a tacit universal quantifier. To be pedantic, a subset S is linearly independent if, for each finite subset T of S and each aK Ta \in K^{T}, if vSa vv=0\sum_{v\in S'} a_v v = 0, then every a v=0a_v = 0.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2015

    Yes, of course. Do you still think there’s a problem?

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorColin Tan
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2015
    Probably not. Still, would we like to make the tacit universal quantifiers explicit?
    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2015

    Does it look okay now?

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2015
    • (edited Oct 4th 2015)

    Todd - don’t non 2 biased (finite) Boolean lattices, (“Oolean”), correspond to number divisor lattices?

    2 n2^n, a 2oolean, is the divisor lattice of any product of n different primes - div( i=1 np i)div( \prod_{i=1}^n p_i)

    3 n3^n, a 3oolean, is the divisor lattice of any product of n different squared primes - div( i=1 npi 2)div( \prod_{i=1}^n p{_i}^2)

    k nk^n, a koolean, is the divisor lattice of any product of n different k1k-1 powers of primes - div( i=1 npi k1)div( \prod_{i=1}^n p{_i}^{k-1})

    1 n=1 m=div(1)=11^n = 1^m = div(1) = 1 is not a special “too simple” case.

    and a (potentially) mixed bias Oolean lattice is the divisor lattice of any arbitrary number. Does your approach also apply to the mixed bias case? Is div(0)div(0) an exceptional case for the “too simple” number 00?

    EDITED: mainly to change some wrong “some”s to “any”s.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorColin Tan
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2015
    It's great, Todd!
    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2015

    (Rod, I haven’t forgotten your question, but I’d like to think more before replying. If Lawvere were here, he’d have a great deal to say, I’m sure.)

  3. I think I found another example: We should say that the zero ideal isn’t principal. This is because it’s generated by no elements of the ring rather than just one. This has the advantage of making the statement of unique factorization easier: “The monoid of principal ideals is isomorphic to a free monoid”. It might seem that it makes the definition of principal ideal ring a bit less nice, namely “the minimal number of generators of any ideal is 1 or less”, but this actually makes the definition analogous to that for a Noetherian ring “the minimal number of generators of any ideal is finite”.

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2016

    I’m conflicted on this one. You’re right that it’s generated by no elements. But it’s also generated by 00 (there’s no law that says the generators have to be linearly independent). It would take a little rewriting over at ideal, which covers cases besides rings, to make it come out the way you want. (Maybe not much rewriting, but I’m not convinced it would be a good idea in the end.)

    Somehow the argument about free (commutative) monoids doesn’t sway me. I think I’m happy referring to the monoid of nonzero principal ideals.

    Just by-the-bye: one nice characterization of principal ideal domains is that they’re commutative rings where all ideals are free modules.

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2016

    My initial inclination is also that the zero ideal is principal, because we generally talk about generators for ideals rather than “bases”. Sometimes the nullary cases are clarified by looking at constructive mathematics: what’s the right notion of “principal ideal” there?

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2016

    On prime numbers: I don't want to say that 00 is a prime number. Saying that 11 is not a prime number is a valid correction of the classical definition, which did not quite get at what it was trying to get at. But saying that 00 is a prime number is going beyond that. (One way to see this is that general ring theory has a concept that generalizes that of prime number; it's just that this concept is called ’irreducible element’ rather than ’prime’.) I don't know why the meaning of the word ’prime’ changed in the transition from elementary number theory to ring theory, but it did.

    • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2016

    I'm also inclined to take the zero ideal to be principal, for the reason that Mike gives. And I'm the most constructivist person in this conversation, I think. But constructivism isn't giving me any insights here. A principal ideal is still just an ideal that is generated by a singleton subset. (Constructivism also gives us a principal antiideal in a ring-with-apartness, as one anti-generated by a singleton subset, but that doesn't help any.)

    • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2016

    The definition at integral domain allowed for the trivial ring, but I fixed that (and expanded some other stuff).

    • CommentRowNumber32.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2018

    Nothing wrong with Oscar’s definition of path-connected.

    diff, v10, current

  4. Rephrased the field example; ’except’ may be taken to imply 0 is an exception, i.e. the full non-naïve definition is assumed already.

    Anonymous

    diff, v11, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)