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 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
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2017

    I added a remark to inhabited set that one can regard writing AA\neq\emptyset to mean “AA is inhabited” as a reference to an inequality relation on sets other than denial.

  1. Nice observation!

    Looking at that entry reminded me of a situation where the constructively sensible rendition of inhabitation is in fact non-emptiness. Let f:XSf : X \to S be an SS-scheme (in a classical context), which we visualize as an SS-indexed family of schemes. Recall that the functor of points of XX, X̲Hom S(,X)\underline{X} \coloneqq Hom_S(\cdot, X), is an object of the big Zariski topos of SS and that the internal language of that topos is in all interesting cases not Boolean.

    Then ff is set-theoretically surjective, meaning that all its fibers are inhabited, if and only if from the point of view of the Zariski topos, X̲\underline{X} is not empty.

    (The condition that X̲\underline{X} is inhabited from the internal point of view means something much stronger, namely that the projection XSX \to S locally has a section, so that not only individual points of SS lift, but entire open parts.)

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2017

    Nice example. In general, I find that the traditional constructivist antipathy towards logical negation is unnecessary. Often it is better to rephrase things “positively”, but plenty of sensible constructive notions do involve negation. For instance, the notion of “disjoint sets” involves a negation, and the inequality xyx\le y of real numbers can be defined as ¬(x>y)\neg (x\gt y).

  2. I agree. (Of course, a practical reason for tending to prefer positive formulations is that those are one step closer to being geometric formulas, which in turn are nice because they behave excellently under pullback along geometric morphisms. For anyone secretly following this conservation, but not quite grasping the importance of geometricity, I recommend Steve Vicker’s notes on this topic.)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2017

    True. Of course, negative definitions can also occur in geometric theories, since PP\vdash\bot is a geometric sequent.

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)