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 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 definitions 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 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

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).

nLab > Latest Changes: Scott's trick

Bottom of Page

1 to 10 of 10

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2018

    Work-up of an article that explains “Scott’s trick” for forming quotients of large classes as classes.

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2018

    Perhaps we should have a page for the category of ZF-classes (if we don’t have one already, I can’t check atm). Aside from being a pretopos, it’s (small) cocomplete with NNO (and W-types more generally) and with subobject classifier. There is this paper which is relevant.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2018

    Those are some good points, David.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2018

    The closest page we have might be algebraic set theory.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2018

    I think the standard material set theory model for algebraic set theory is NBG, to that proper classes are first-class objects and not mere syntactic devices.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2018

    But that’s basically equivalent.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2018

    I’m sure you know better than me, but aren’t the classes of ZF just the definable classes, as opposed to NBG classes which could be more arbitrary? I can certainly imagine that there could be classes in a model of NBG that don’t arise from propositions in the first-order language of sets.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2018

    Yes, you’re right, that’s true. But NBG doesn’t allow you to construct any non-definable classes (in contrast to MK).

    I guess maybe my point is that I don’t think it would be worth having separate pages about the category of ZF-classes versus the category of NBG-classes, as the former is a special case of the latter.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2018

    No, just perhaps it would be good for searchability to have something like category of classes, separate from ’algebraic set theory’, which isn’t a very enlightening title for a materially-trained mathematician.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2018

    Oh, I certainly agree; I was just pointing out AST as the closest thing we already had.

1 to 10 of 10

  1.