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-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-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory kan lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage 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 superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft 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.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2017
    • (edited Nov 8th 2017)

    Returning to the Barcan formulas, where what is at stake is a comparison between xP(x)\bigcirc \exists x P(x) and P(x)\exists \bigcirc P(x). Given our set up, strictly these are ill-formed. The monad W\bigcirc_W sends WW-dependent types to the same. A quantifier such as x:A\exists_{x:A} change context, sending AA-dependent types to plain types.

    Two thoughts then.

    (1) Say I have w:W,x:A(w)ϕ(w,x):Propw: W, x: A(w) \vdash \phi(w, x): Prop. Then I can form W x:A(w)ϕ(w,x)\bigcirc_W \sum_{x: A(w)} \phi(w, x), the world-dependent (constant) type containing all possible AAs which are ϕ\phi. Evaluated at a specific world, this amounts to w:W x:A(w)ϕ(w,x)\sum_{w:W}\sum_{x: A(w)} \phi(w, x). Then I can also form (w,x): w:WA(w)ϕ(w,x)\sum_{(w, x):\sum_{w:W}A(w)}\phi(w, x).

    A version of the Barcan formulas then amounts to the equivalence of taking dependent sum in one or two stages.

    w:W x:A(w)ϕ(w,x) (w,x): w:WA(w)ϕ(w,x) \sum_{w:W}\sum_{x: A(w)} \phi(w, x) \simeq \sum_{(w, x):\sum_{w:W}A(w)}\phi(w, x)

    It’s just the rebracketing of the three-part terms in pairs: (w,(a,p))((w,a),p)(w, (a, p)) \leftrightarrow ((w, a), p). We might say:

    Possibly there’s an AA which is ϕ\phi and there is a possible AA which is ϕ\phi.

    (2) Alternatively, we are imagining some trans-world identity of AAs, perhaps by the pulling back to the constant world-dependent type W *AW^{\ast} A. Then what should I say strictly?

    If I have w:W,x:Aw: W, x: A as my context, I guess strictly I shouldn’t rely on this being the ’same’ as x:A,w:Wx: A, w: W, and so interchanging W\bigcirc_W and x:A\exists_{x:A} is not allowed.

    Maybe it just amounts to the previous solution but with W *A(w)W^{\ast} A(w) instead of A(w)A(w).

    If you find the metaphysics of possible worlds unintuitive, turning to temporal logic and the Future operator may help. Some people would want to deny the assertion “in the future there will be a ruler of the world” entails “there is something (now) which in the future will be ruler of the world”. My solution (1) is about reworking the latter claim into “there is a future person who will be ruler of the world”, and is presumably unexceptionable as the rebracketing account would suggest.