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.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI added a remark to [[inhabited set]] that one can regard writing $A\neq\emptyset$ to mean "$A$ is inhabited" as a reference to an [[inequality relation]] on sets other than denial.

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

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexNice observation! Looking at that entry reminded me of a situation where the constructively sensible rendition of inhabitation is in fact non-emptiness. Let $f : X \to S$ be an $S$-scheme (in a classical context), which we visualize as an $S$-indexed family of schemes. Recall that the functor of points of $X$, $\underline{X} \coloneqq Hom_S(\cdot, X)$, is an object of the big [[Zariski topos]] of $S$ and that the internal language of that topos is in all interesting cases not Boolean. Then $f$ is set-theoretically surjective, meaning that all its fibers are inhabited, if and only if from the point of view of the Zariski topos, $\underline{X}$ is not empty. (The condition that $\underline{X}$ is inhabited from the internal point of view means something much stronger, namely that the projection $X \to S$ locally has a section, so that not only individual points of $S$ lift, but entire open parts.)

   Nice observation!

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

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

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

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexNice 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 $x\le y$ of real numbers can be defined as $\neg (x\gt y)$.

   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 $x\le y$ of real numbers can be defined as $\neg (x\gt y)$.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexI 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](https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~sjv/GLiCS.pdf) on this topic.)

   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.)

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexTrue. Of course, negative definitions can also occur in geometric *theories*, since $P\vdash\bot$ is a geometric sequent.

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