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 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 sheaves 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.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 11th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexCreated [[multiplicative disjunction]].

   Created multiplicative disjunction.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorJonasFrey
   • CommentTimeMay 11th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: JonasFrey
   Format: MarkdownItexI understand the difference between "tensor" and "par" best via game semantics: Imagine we play two parallel games of chess, where I'm playing white in one and you in the other. If we both play the "copycat strategy", i.e. wait for the other one to open in one game to "copy" their move to the other, then we have a "deadlock". The solution is that one of us has to play Chess "tensor" ~Chess, and the other Chess "par" ~Chess (where "Chess" is the game from the perspective of white, and the negation "~Chess" is the perspective of black). "Par" is in the stronger position because it can play copycat in this situation, i.e. it can wait for the other to move, whereas tensor has to play as soon as it's their turn in one of the games. Another, stronger interpretation is that in A "tensor" B we can not use any information from A to play B, and vice versa, so A and B are played by two non-communicating threads. So in a sense you can say that linear logic is a type system for concurrent processes that allows to avoid dead-locks.

   I understand the difference between “tensor” and “par” best via game semantics: Imagine we play two parallel games of chess, where I’m playing white in one and you in the other. If we both play the “copycat strategy”, i.e. wait for the other one to open in one game to “copy” their move to the other, then we have a “deadlock”. The solution is that one of us has to play

   Chess “tensor” ~Chess,

   and the other

   Chess “par” ~Chess

   (where “Chess” is the game from the perspective of white, and the negation “~Chess” is the perspective of black).

   “Par” is in the stronger position because it can play copycat in this situation, i.e. it can wait for the other to move, whereas tensor has to play as soon as it’s their turn in one of the games. Another, stronger interpretation is that in

   A “tensor” B

   we can not use any information from A to play B, and vice versa, so A and B are played by two non-communicating threads.

   So in a sense you can say that linear logic is a type system for concurrent processes that allows to avoid dead-locks.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 11th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI meant to add that too, but didn't have time. Why don't you do it?

   I meant to add that too, but didn’t have time. Why don’t you do it?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeDec 11th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexA year and a half later, I added #2 to the page, and also some comments about notation and the disjunctive syllogism.

   A year and a half later, I added #2 to the page, and also some comments about notation and the disjunctive syllogism.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeDec 11th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexGiven what follows after the section 'In terms of resources', where it has >a military general who knows that he will be attacked from either the east or the north must divide his forces between both fronts, even if the attack will only come from one direction this means that even if the attack begins from the east, it might switch to the north and then between fronts?

   Given what follows after the section ’In terms of resources’, where it has

   a military general who knows that he will be attacked from either the east or the north must divide his forces between both fronts, even if the attack will only come from one direction

   this means that even if the attack begins from the east, it might switch to the north and then between fronts?

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeDec 11th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI think it means that he must commit some of his forces to defend in the east and some to defend in the north: the two fronts are far enough apart that he won't be able to shift his forces around after the attack begins.

   I think it means that he must commit some of his forces to defend in the east and some to defend in the north: the two fronts are far enough apart that he won’t be able to shift his forces around after the attack begins.