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-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics 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 finite 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 history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limit 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 nlab nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object 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 string 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.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2018

    Indicated where to find (in the nLab) a proof of the equivalence with the axiom of choice and with Zorn’s lemma (<– it’s there).

    diff, v21, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2018

    That seems slightly odd, but probably as long as it’s indicated where to find it it doesn’t matter.

  1. Would it be OK to remove the discussion box on this page? Probably no need to copy it here; if it is announced on the nForum, we will be able to find it easily again if we ever needed to.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2018

    I agree that it seems a little weird, Mike.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2018

    Sure, the discussion can be removed.

  2. Removed old discussion in query box.

    diff, v23, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2021

    This page claims that the well-ordering principle doesn’t imply excluded middle. But the way the paragraph is written is a bit ambiguous, and it may be interpreted as saying that the well-ordering principle doesn’t seem to imply excluded middle. If the former, does anybody know a reference for this?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2021
    • (edited Jul 22nd 2021)

    I asked the same question in the Zulip HoTT chat. Andrew Swan’s answer is that the (inductive) well-ordering principle implies excluded middle (and hence choice, I believe): https://hott.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/228519-general/topic/inductive.20well-ordering.20gives.20excluded.20middle.3F/near/246881801

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2021

    My student Tom de Jong formalized Swan’s answer in Agda, by the way (also taking into account a question I made after his answer).

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2021

    Hi Martin, thanks for picking this up.

    PS If you want urls to turn into links, you need to surround them with angle brackets, like <https://example.com>, and have the Markdown option selected, to get https://example.com

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2021

    Thanks for the angle-bracket hint. Done!

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    Fixed an incorrect claim. The well-ordering principle is actually equivalent to the axiom of choice in constructive mathematics, as proved by Andrew Swan (and formalized in Agda by Tom de Jong).

    diff, v26, current

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    Fixed Zorn’s lemma as well.

    diff, v26, current

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    I’ve added a reference, by John Bell, that Zorn’s Lemma doesn’t imply excluded middle. How do I reference this reference in nLab syntax?

    diff, v27, current

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    Improved the reference to Bell.

    diff, v27, current

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021
    • (edited Jul 23rd 2021)

    How do I reference this reference in nLab syntax?

    Following the template here I’d do something like this:

    • J. L. Bell, Zorn’s lemma and complete Boolean algebras in intuitionistic type theories, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 62(4):1265–1279, 1997 (doi:10.2307/2275642)
    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    Removed “if one admits the principle of excluded middle” from the beginning of the page, an assumption which is no longer needed after Andrew Swan.

    diff, v29, current

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    Removed “classically” at the beginning of the file, as this assumption is no longer needed.

    diff, v29, current

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    Following up on #16:

    In fact we already have a page John Lane Bell, so best to link to it, too.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    Thanks, Urs, for both comments. I will add it later after I study the template.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    Oh, I see that you already did it. Good.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    By the way, I would re-structure that entry, regarding the material that was already there before you came in:

    • the section “Assessment” is hardly worth a section, this should be a \begin{remark} ... \end{remark} and I find even that is unnecessary, as that assessment is at best besides the point (famous as that quote may be)

    • the section “History” should be moved down to right before the references, not to distract from genuine content

    This way your material “In constructive mathematics” would be moved up to where it’s more relevant, and maybe it should be inside “statement and proof”.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    I agree. I found the “assessment” a bit odd, not in its contents, which is interesting, but in its title.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    Go ahead if you want to do it. It seems that you have an editing plan in your head already.

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    Actually, the “assessment” is better placed where it is, I think. This is because, in “In constructive mathematics” we are actually discussing the topics of the “assessment”. Namely that classically two things are equivalent to choice, about which in “In constructive mathematics” we learn that one is constructively equivalent to choice but the other isn’t. So perhaps I would keep things as they are, but changing the title “assessment”. Maybe “discussion”? Not perfect but perhaps less worse than “assessment”?

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    Have moved the section “History” to right before “References” and turned the section “Assessment” into a remark inside “Statement and proof”.

    diff, v31, current

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2021

    Looks good to me.

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthormartinescardo
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2021

    Added link to Dominik Kirst’s Coq formalization of Andrew Swan’s argument.

    diff, v32, current

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)