I Several Questions About Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis

Click For Summary
Smooth infinitesimal analysis (SIA) requires a solid understanding of logic, set theory, and real analysis. The notation "ε.1" refers to ε multiplied by 1, and it appears in a proof demonstrating that the law of excluded middle (LEM) does not hold in SIA. The Kock-Lawvere axiom is used alongside LEM to derive contradictions, further supporting the claim that LEM is not valid in this context. The discussion raises questions about the implications of working in a mathematical framework where traditional interpretations of zero and non-zero values differ. Understanding these concepts is crucial for engaging with SIA effectively.
Mike_bb
Messages
179
Reaction score
19
Hello.
I read about smooth infinitesimal analysis and I have several questions:

1.What does "ε.1" and "ε.0" mean in this proof? (photo1) (https://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/basic.pdf , page 5-6)

2. For what purpose do we use Kock-Lawvere axiom when we deal with law of excluded middle? (photo2) (https://www.fuw.edu.pl/~kostecki/sdg.pdf , page 21)

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    41.9 KB · Views: 185
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    19.6 KB · Views: 189
Physics news on Phys.org
Mike_bb said:
I read about smooth infinitesimal analysis and I have several questions:
It is not possible to understand SIA without solid understanding of logic, set theory and real analysis; do you have these?

Mike_bb said:
1.What does "ε.1" and "ε.0" mean in this proof? (photo1) (https://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/basic.pdf , page 5-6)
This is standard notation (although perhaps not typeset very well). ## \varepsilon \cdot 1 ## means ε multiplied by 1. Photo 1 is part of a proof that the law of the excluded middle (LEM) does not hold in SIA.

Mike_bb said:
2. For what purpose do we use Kock-Lawvere axiom when we deal with law of excluded middle? (photo2) (https://www.fuw.edu.pl/~kostecki/sdg.pdf , page 21)
I don't understand what you are asking. In photo 2 the author uses the Kock-Lawvere Axiom and LEM to derive a statement that is a contradiction, again proving that LEM does not hold in SIA.

What is your interest in SIA? Are you really comfortable working in a domain where ## x^2 = 0 ## does not mean ## x = 0 ##? Or where ## x \ne 0 ## being not true does not mean ## x = 0 ##?