Online resource for type theory?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter phoenixthoth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Resource Theory Type
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around finding online resources for type theory, particularly focusing on the concept of a "universal object" and its relation to set theory and topos theory. Participants explore various theories and their implications, as well as the aesthetic and conceptual challenges they present.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about online resources for type theory and mentions a "universal object" that "contains" all other "objects."
  • Another participant asserts that there is a universal object in ordinary set theory, but clarifies that it is not a set.
  • A participant expresses a preference to avoid type theory and critiques ZFC set theory based on aesthetic appeal rather than correctness.
  • There is a suggestion to explore topos theory, with uncertainty about whether a topos can have a "largest" object.
  • Discussion includes the classification of sets into "small" and "large" sets within ZFC, and the implications of this classification.
  • Participants discuss the hierarchy of "objects" and the existence of a universal object in categories, with varying definitions and interpretations.
  • Some participants propose definitions of universal objects in categories, questioning whether these definitions hold for set theory.
  • There are references to specific texts and authors that may provide further insights into the topics discussed.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about the implications of their definitions and the existence of universal elements in various categories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion features multiple competing views regarding the existence and nature of universal objects in type theory and set theory. Participants do not reach a consensus, and various interpretations and definitions are debated.

Contextual Notes

Participants express limitations in their understanding of category theory and the definitions of universal objects, indicating that the discussion is exploratory and not conclusive.

  • #31
New theorem, but I think you already anticipated this one.


Suppose f is a bijection between V and V^V.
Then, every function V--->V has a fixed point.


Proof is roughly the same as the previous one I gave:

Let j by a function from V to V.

Define g(x) = f(x)(x)
Let s = f^-1(j o g)

Then, g(s) = f(s)(s) = (j o g)(s) = j(g(s))

Thus, g(s) is a fixed point of j.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Just a shot in the dark, but does this property characterize the V such that V is in bijection with V^V?

In other words, if every function from V to V has a fixed point, then is V in bijection with V^V?

(This links up with my definition of a awareness, but let's discuss that there and not here.)

I will work on this, too.
 
  • #33
Note that we have a binary composition on V, given by:

VxV ---> (V^V)xV ---> V

Where the first arrow applies the isomorphism to the first argument, and the second arrow is the evaluation morphism.

In a more set theoretic presentation, for a in V, let \bar{a} be the corresponding element in V^V. Then, a \cdot b := \bar{a}(b)

Clearly, in general, this operation appears to be noncommutative and nonassociative. Such a thing is called a "magma"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma_(algebra)

Maybe something in there is useful.


Clearly, elements of a magma M act on that magma by left multiplication, and in this way we recover part of M^M... but not necessarily all of it, I suppose.


Actually, we have what might be a different binary operation. If V is reflexive, then we have VxV <= V. (I've changed notation -- I hate using < when the objects can be isomorphic) By definition, there's a monic VxV --> V, so this can be taken as a binary operation.
 
  • #34
It strikes me that I have not proven it impossible for V^V <= V in a topos either. I'm working on seeing if it can be true for the subobjects of 1 (i.e. the logic values).

Also, technically I have not proven it impossible for PV < V in a topos... there's certainly a monic V --> PV, but I don't know if the existence of a monic PV --> V implies V and PV are isomorphic.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
29K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K