Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

(0 1)-category-theory 2-category 2-category-theory 2-monad abelian-categories accessible adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry analysis arithmetic beauty book bug bundle categories category category-theory chern-simons-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics complex-geometry conference connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology database deformation-theory descent differential differential-cohomology differential-geometry duality enriched enriched-category-theory enrichment examples factorization-system fiber fibration forms foundation foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra general topology geometric geometric-quantization geometry gravity group-theory higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory homtopy-type-theory infinity-groupoid integration-theory internal-categories kan lie lie-algebras lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization localization-theory logic manifolds mathematics measure measure-theory mechanics meta modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category monoidal-category-theory morphism n-groups newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry object operator operator-algebra order-theory philosophy physics predicative pretopology pro-object probability-theory quantum quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry set set-theory sheaf simplicial site space stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory subobject supergeometry symplectic-geometry tannaka tensor terminology theory topologica-quantum-field-theory topology topos topos-theory torsor tqft type type-theory universal weighted-limit

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMar 29th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat's the relationship between a [first-order (Boolean) hyperdoctrine](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/first-order+hyperdoctrine), which >does for (classical) predicate logics precisely what Lindenbaum algebras do for propositional logic, and a Boolean coherent category, which is the syntactic theory of a classical first-order theory?

   What’s the relationship between a first-order (Boolean) hyperdoctrine, which

   does for (classical) predicate logics precisely what Lindenbaum algebras do for propositional logic,

   and a Boolean coherent category, which is the syntactic theory of a classical first-order theory?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMar 29th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexBriefly, a hyperdoctrine keeps the type theory separate from the logic, whereas a syntactic category realizes every predicate as a subobject of a type. The subobject fibration of a Heyting category is a hyperdoctrine, but the predicates in a general hyperdoctrine may not be realizable as objects of the base category. So I think it depends on how general a notion of semantics you are interested in.

   Briefly, a hyperdoctrine keeps the type theory separate from the logic, whereas a syntactic category realizes every predicate as a subobject of a type. The subobject fibration of a Heyting category is a hyperdoctrine, but the predicates in a general hyperdoctrine may not be realizable as objects of the base category. So I think it depends on how general a notion of semantics you are interested in.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMar 29th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks for that Mike. I was exploring the thought of making first-order the coalgebraic conception of modal logic as duality between coalgebras on Stone and algebras on Boolean Algebras, so was interested to see these [slides](http://www.math.ru.nl/~coumans/talkmlnl.pdf) on the duals for Boolean hyperdoctrines as indexed Stone Spaces. One might imagine sticking in the modalities on top of this duality. Then I'd like to see what hyperdoctrine duality had to do with Forssell's duality between the syntacic categories (Boolean coherent categories) and topological groupoids of models. Then see whether the ionad as modal model fits in. Got to dash very quickly now, but I wonder if $Set^X$ has something to do with indexed Set (as dual of CABA), rather than indexed stone space (as dual of BA).

   Thanks for that Mike. I was exploring the thought of making first-order the coalgebraic conception of modal logic as duality between coalgebras on Stone and algebras on Boolean Algebras, so was interested to see these slides on the duals for Boolean hyperdoctrines as indexed Stone Spaces. One might imagine sticking in the modalities on top of this duality.

   Then I’d like to see what hyperdoctrine duality had to do with Forssell’s duality between the syntacic categories (Boolean coherent categories) and topological groupoids of models. Then see whether the ionad as modal model fits in.

   Got to dash very quickly now, but I wonder if ${\mathrm{Set}}^X$ has something to do with indexed Set (as dual of CABA), rather than indexed stone space (as dual of BA).

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMar 30th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexSo, as far as classical first-order theories go, syntactic categories are Boolean coherent, and these are included in Boolean hyperdoctrines? So, then, Awodey and Forssell's duality between the category of ($\kappa$-small) Boolean pretoposes and Stone topological groupoids is contained within the duality between Boolean hyperdoctrines and indexed Stone spaces?

   So, as far as classical first-order theories go, syntactic categories are Boolean coherent, and these are included in Boolean hyperdoctrines? So, then, Awodey and Forssell’s duality between the category of ($\kappa$-small) Boolean pretoposes and Stone topological groupoids is contained within the duality between Boolean hyperdoctrines and indexed Stone spaces?

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMar 30th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexSo, now I see there's a strand to the semantics of modal predicate logic which can be viewed as taking a Boolean hyperdoctrine $B^{op} \to BA$, $B$ a category with finite products (the types), then extending to a modal hyperdoctrine $B^{op} \to MA$ (modal algebras are kinds of [BAOs](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/algebraic+model+for+modal+logics#boolean_algebras_with_operators_baos_3)). Just as there are duals for Boolean hyperdoctrines $B \to Stone$ (indexed Stone spaces), now we have duals of modal hyperdoctrines $B \to$ [descriptive general frames](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_frame#Types_of_frames). Descriptive general frames have been shown to be coalgebras on $Stone$ as modal algebras are algebras on $BA$. These indexed descriptive general frames, or at least a form of them for specific $B$, have appeared in the literature as *metaframes*, and it is [known](http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~okutz/counterparts_handbook.pdf) that >all modal predicate logics are complete with respect to cartesian metaframes.

   So, now I see there’s a strand to the semantics of modal predicate logic which can be viewed as taking a Boolean hyperdoctrine $B^{\mathrm{op}}\to \mathrm{BA}$, $B$ a category with finite products (the types), then extending to a modal hyperdoctrine $B^{\mathrm{op}}\to \mathrm{MA}$ (modal algebras are kinds of BAOs).

   Just as there are duals for Boolean hyperdoctrines $B\to \mathrm{Stone}$ (indexed Stone spaces), now we have duals of modal hyperdoctrines $B\to$ descriptive general frames. Descriptive general frames have been shown to be coalgebras on $\mathrm{Stone}$ as modal algebras are algebras on $\mathrm{BA}$.

   These indexed descriptive general frames, or at least a form of them for specific $B$, have appeared in the literature as metaframes, and it is known that

   all modal predicate logics are complete with respect to cartesian metaframes.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 1st 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexInteresting!

   Interesting!

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexSo, commonly, they choose the $B^{op}$ to be the natural numbers with mappings. Intuitively, sitting above $n$ there is the Boolean or modal algebra of formulas whose free variables are contained in the set $\{x_1, ..., x_n\}$. Then on the dual side, $0$ is mapped to a Stone space of worlds, $H(0)$, and $1$ to the space of individuals, $H(1)$. The map $1 \to 0$ gives a fibring of individuals onto worlds. $H(n)$ are similarly fibred over worlds. Particular attention has been paid to cases where a fibre of $H(n)$ is the $n$-fold product of the fibre of $H(1)$. The frame aspect of the construction captures 'counterpart' relations between individuals. This is a notion due to the philosopher David Lewis, who took possible world talk very seriously. If 'I might have had eggs for breakfast' is true in this world, it is made true by the existence of a close world in which my counterpart did have eggs for breakfast. The sorts of complexity one would need to capture include an individual in this world having no counterparts or many of them in an accessible world. With some homotopic nontriviality thrown in, one could imagine a loop in the space of possible worlds along which taking the counterpart relation permutes individuals. In 'cartesian' cases where $H(1)$ determines $H(n)$, the information is presumably encoded in the 'bundle' $H(1) \to H(0)$, which maps the counterpart relation for individuals to the accessibility relation for worlds. This would explain interest in [Kripke sheaves](http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kyodo/kokyuroku/contents/pdf/1010-9.pdf). Awodey and Kishida's work extend Kripke sheaves to sheaves over general topological spaces, rather than those generated using the Alexandroff topology from a preorder. Using different categories for $B$ would allow for typed modal logics.

   So, commonly, they choose the $B^{\mathrm{op}}$ to be the natural numbers with mappings. Intuitively, sitting above $n$ there is the Boolean or modal algebra of formulas whose free variables are contained in the set $\{x_1,...,x_n\}$. Then on the dual side, $0$ is mapped to a Stone space of worlds, $H(0)$, and $1$ to the space of individuals, $H(1)$. The map $1\to 0$ gives a fibring of individuals onto worlds. $H(n)$ are similarly fibred over worlds. Particular attention has been paid to cases where a fibre of $H(n)$ is the $n$-fold product of the fibre of $H(1)$.

   The frame aspect of the construction captures ’counterpart’ relations between individuals. This is a notion due to the philosopher David Lewis, who took possible world talk very seriously. If ’I might have had eggs for breakfast’ is true in this world, it is made true by the existence of a close world in which my counterpart did have eggs for breakfast. The sorts of complexity one would need to capture include an individual in this world having no counterparts or many of them in an accessible world. With some homotopic nontriviality thrown in, one could imagine a loop in the space of possible worlds along which taking the counterpart relation permutes individuals.

   In ’cartesian’ cases where $H(1)$ determines $H(n)$, the information is presumably encoded in the ’bundle’ $H(1)\to H(0)$, which maps the counterpart relation for individuals to the accessibility relation for worlds. This would explain interest in Kripke sheaves.

   Awodey and Kishida’s work extend Kripke sheaves to sheaves over general topological spaces, rather than those generated using the Alexandroff topology from a preorder.

   Using different categories for $B$ would allow for typed modal logics.