DOCSLIB.ORG

ON SETS, GAMES and PROCESSES By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ON SETS, GAMES and PROCESSES By ON SETS, GAMES AND PROCESSES by MICHAEL COX A thesis submitted to University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Mathematics College of Engineering and Physical Sciences University of Birmingham July 2013 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract We introduce a two-sided set theory, Amphi-ZF, based on the pure games of Conway et al.; we show Amphi-ZF and ZF are synonymous, with the same result for important subtheories. An order-theoretic generalisation of Conway games is introduced, and the theory de- veloped. We show the collection of such orders over a poset possesses rich structure, and an analogue of Stone's theorem is proved for posets, using these spaces. These generalisations are then considered using categories. Compatible set-theoretic notions are introduced, and ideas of regularity axioms with purely game-theoretic moti- vations are explored; applications to nonstandard arithmetic and multithreaded software are proposed. We consider topological set theory in a nonstandard model M of Peano arithmetic, and demonstrate that Malitz' original construction works in a finite set theory interpreted by M, with the usual cardinal replaced by a special initial segment. This gives a suitably compact topological model of GPK. Reverse results are also considered: crowdedness of the topological model holds iff the initial segment is strong. A reverse-mathematical principle is investigated, and used it to show that completeness of the topological model is much weaker. Comparisons are made with the standard situation as investigated by Forti et al. For Bill. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Generous thanks are due to my family, for their support and persistence with my educa- tion, without which I would not have come nearly so far. Also to Sandi, for her enduring support and encouragement. Great thanks are of course due to my Ph.D. and Masters supervisor, Dr. Richard Kaye. He has provided fresh insight and is a constant source of ideas. All material presented here should be considered joint work with him. Also I am grateful to my fellow Ph.D. students and the staff at the university; I must mention Tin Lok Wong, who produced the bhamthesis class for LATEX, which made formatting this thesis bearable. CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Brief survey of relevant literature . 1 1.1.1 Combinatorial game theory . 1 1.1.2 Topological set theory . 11 1.2 This thesis . 14 1.2.1 Amphi-ZF . 14 1.2.2 Order theory of combinatorial games . 14 1.2.3 Extensions in category theory . 15 1.2.4 Topological set theory in nonstandard arithmetic . 17 2 A two-sided set theory for combinatorial games 18 2.1 Preliminaries . 19 2.2 Amphi-ZF . 21 2.3 Interpreting Amphi-ZF in ZF . 26 2.4 Interpreting ZF in Amphi-ZF . 29 2.5 Amphi-NBG . 33 2.6 Rieger{Bernays permutation models . 35 2.7 Open questions and suggestions for future research . 41 3 Two-ordered structures 43 3.1 Two-ordered structures . 44 3.1.1 Definitions and examples . 44 3.1.2 Morphisms of two-ordered structures . 47 3.1.3 Two-orders and boolean algebras . 49 3.2 Structures of two-orders . 52 3.2.1 Extending and reducing two-orders . 52 3.2.2 A representation theorem for posets . 56 3.3 Two-ordered groups . 60 3.3.1 Morphisms and quotients . 64 3.3.2 Homomorphism theorems . 66 3.3.3 Automorphisms of two-ordered structures . 72 3.4 Duality and determinacy . 74 4 Game categories 78 4.1 Preliminaries . 78 4.2 Game categories . 79 4.2.1 Functors of game categories . 80 4.3 Extending and reducing game categories . 86 4.4 Products of game categories . 90 4.4.1 Products in GC ............................. 90 4.4.2 Products in GCam ........................... 93 4.5 Enriched game categories and the value map . 95 4.6 Monoidal game categories . 99 4.6.1 Monoidal game categories and the value map . 101 4.7 Architectures . 102 4.7.1 Architectures and the value map . 105 4.8 Gamuts . 106 4.8.1 Examples of gamuts . 107 5 2-architectures 112 5.1 Building 2-architectures from amphisets . 113 5.1.1 The least order method as a functor . 120 5.1.2 The dual of T m .............................121 5.2 Extending existing architectures . 122 5.3 Cuts in Peano arithmetic as surreal numbers over a model . 125 5.3.1 Rifts as a measure of size . 134 5.4 Architectures as a threading model . 135 6 Topological set theory and nonstandard arithmetic 138 6.1 Preliminaries . 138 6.1.1 Properties of cuts . 139 6.2 The construction . 141 6.2.1 Sequences . 142 6.3 Positive set theory in V .............................144 6.4 Reverse results . 147 6.4.1 Crowdedness . 147 6.4.2 Completeness . 149 6.4.3 Witnessing principles . 150 6.5 The relative strength of CDF . 155 7 Conclusions 159 7.1 In game theory . 159 7.2 In nonstandard topological set theory . 160 List of References 161 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This thesis reports the more successful research from a period of study between 2009 and 2013; some results here beg for improvement and are unlikely to be optimal. Chapters 2-5 in particular build upon the author's MPhil(Qual) thesis, Contributions to the theory of combinatorial games [16]. As such some material should be recognisable to a reader of the MPhil(Qual), but also more complete. Chapter 6 is completely new, although it too has some roots in the predecessor. That chapter is also somewhat unrelated to the rest of the thesis, but certainly reflects an important part of the author's PhD studies. We begin with a brief survey of relevant literature. This will help us to put the current work into context, and also is an ideal place to introduce necessary concepts and notation. 1.1 Brief survey of relevant literature 1.1.1 Combinatorial game theory Game theory is a vast subject area, and as such it has been necessary throughout to restrict attention to a very small subset. This was achieved by considering primarily combinatorial games1, or two-player games of perfect information, in which players alternate in taking 1By combinatorial game we will always mean a two-player game of perfect information, where the players alternate turns. Often these will come with some notion of strategy, and moving from one position to another. Positions tend to be identified with games (so that each position in a game is considered a game in its own right, and each game may be considered a position in a larger game). 1 their turns. Although some of the research below will apply outside this restricted area, our focus will only be on such games. Impartial games, Nim, and the Sprague-Grundy theorem The first significant result of combinatorial game theory was the Sprague-Grundy theorem, discovered independently by R.P. Sprague [81] and P.M. Grundy [42]. This concerned impartial combinatorial games: games between two players, where each move available to one is available to both, and in which the players alternate to take turns and the last to move wins. One particularly distinguished such game is Nim, in which players take turns to remove (for instance) counters from a number of stacks. The initial state or position of the game is some configuration involving any number (0; 1; 2;:::) of heaps of counters. A player must, on their turn, select one heap and remove any positive number of counters from it. Under the normal play condition, the last player to remove any counters is the winner (so whichever player cannot make a move when required to loses, and the game terminates). The outcomes of Nim positions are equivalent to nimbers, defined as follows. The empty game (having no moves for either player, and hence a definite win for the second player, II), say fg, is the nimber ∗0. We then set ∗1 = f∗0g, the game in which each player may move only to the position ∗0 (hence this position is a definite win for the first player). We define ∗2 = f∗0; ∗1g; . ∗(n + 1) = f∗0; ∗2;:::; ∗ng; . Assuming that the two players play according to the best possible strategies (in the finite, wellfounded impartial games considered by Sprague and Grundy there is always 2 an optimal strategy), we can talk of the outcome class of a position G: say G is an N - position if the next player to move (i.e. I) wins, and a P-position if the previous player to move (i.e. II) wins. For wellfounded such games there is always a winner, and hence every impartial, wellfounded combinatorial game is either an N -position or a P-position. In particular, ∗0 is a P-position, while every other nimber (allowing the first player to move to ∗0 and hence to win) is an N -position. If G; H are games then we may form the disjunctive sum G + H by allowing each player, on their turn, to pick exactly one of G; H and proceed by moving in that game as usual.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arxiv:1405.0984V4 [Math.DG] 23 Dec 2015 Ai N Vryte Pwt Lsia Nltcntos Ntepresen D the finite in by Defined Notions
    DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY VIA INFINITESIMAL DISPLACEMENTS TAHL NOWIK AND MIKHAIL G. KATZ Abstract. We present a new formulation of some basic differential geometric notions on a smooth manifold M, in the setting of nonstandard analysis. In place of classical vector fields, for which one needs to construct the tangent bundle of M, we define a prevector field, which is an internal map from ∗M to itself, implementing the intuitive notion of vectors as infinitesimal displacements. We introduce regularity conditions for prevector fields, defined by finite dif- ferences, thus purely combinatorial conditions involving no analysis. These conditions replace the more elaborate analytic regularity conditions appearing in previous similar approaches, e.g. by Stroyan and Luxemburg or Lutz and Goze. We define the flow of a prevector field by hyperfinite iteration of the given prevector field, in the spirit of Euler’s method. We define the Lie bracket of two prevector fields by appropriate iteration of their commutator. We study the properties of flows and Lie brackets, particularly in relation with our proposed regularity conditions. We present several simple applications to the classical setting, such as bounds re- lated to the flow of vector fields, analysis of small oscillations of a pendulum, and an instance of Frobenius’ Theorem regarding the complete integrability of independent vector fields. 1. Introduction We develop foundations for differential geometry on smooth manifolds, based on infinites- imals, where vectors and vector fields are represented by infinitesimal displacements in the arXiv:1405.0984v4 [math.DG] 23 Dec 2015 manifold itself, as they were thought of historically. Such an approach was previously intro- duced e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonstandard Analysis (Math 649K) Spring 2008
    Nonstandard Analysis (Math 649k) Spring 2008 David Ross, Department of Mathematics February 29, 2008 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Outline of course: 1. Introduction: motivation, history, and propoganda 2. Nonstandard models: definition, properties, some unavoidable logic 3. Very basic Calculus/Analysis 4. Applications of saturation 5. General Topology 6. Measure Theory 7. Functional Analysis 8. Probability 1.2 Some References: 1. Abraham Robinson (1966) Nonstandard Analysis North Holland, Amster- dam 2. Martin Davis and Reuben Hersh Nonstandard Analysis Scientific Ameri- can, June 1972 3. Davis, M. (1977) Applied Nonstandard Analysis Wiley, New York. 4. Sergio Albeverio, Jens Erik Fenstad, Raphael Høegh-Krohn, and Tom Lindstrøm (1986) Nonstandard Methods in Stochastic Analysis and Math- ematical Physics. Academic Press, New York. 5. Al Hurd and Peter Loeb (1985) An introduction to Nonstandard Real Anal- ysis Academic Press, New York. 6. Keith Stroyan and Wilhelminus Luxemburg (1976) Introduction to the Theory of Infinitesimals Academic Press, New York. 7. Keith Stroyan and Jose Bayod (1986) Foundations of Infinitesimal Stochas- tic Analysis North Holland, Amsterdam 8. Leif Arkeryd, Nigel Cutland, C. Ward Henson (eds) (1997) Nonstandard Analysis: Theory and Applications, Kluwer 9. Rob Goldblatt (1998) Lectures on the Hyperreals, Springer 2 1.3 Some history: • (xxxx) Archimedes • (1615) Kepler, Nova stereometria dolorium vinariorium • (1635) Cavalieri, Geometria indivisibilus • (1635) Excercitationes geometricae (”Rigor is the affair of philosophy rather
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Math/0209292V2 [Math.OA] 13 Dec 2002 Ntsmlnr.Though Norm
    QUASIDIAGONAL C∗-ALGEBRAS AND NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS F. Javier Thayer Suppose B is an ultraproduct of finite dimensional C∗-algebras. We consider mapping and injectability properties for separable C∗- algebras into B. In the case of approximately finite C∗-algebras, we obtain a classification of these mappings up to inner conju- gacy. Using a Theorem of Voiculescu, we show that for nuclear C∗-algebras injectability into an ultraproduct of finite dimensional C∗-algebras is equivalent to quasidiagonality. 1. Introduction In this paper we use nonstandard analysis ([1], [13], [15]) to investigate injectability into C∗-algebras B which are infinitesimal hulls of hyperfinite dimensional inter- nal C∗-algebras B. B is obtained from B by considering the subspace Fin(B) of elements with norm and identifying x, y Fin(B) whenever x y has in- finitesimal norm. Though≪ ∞ B is a legitimate standard∈ C∗-algebra, it is− very large, except in the uninteresting case the original B is finite dimensional. We point out that the C∗-algebras B are exactly ultraproducts of finite-dimensional C∗-algebras (see [11] or the appendix). A more interesting question from an operator theorist’s viewpoint, is which kinds of separable C∗-algebras are injectable into B and what kinds of mappings exist from separable C∗-algebras into B. We show the following: If A is an AF algebra, Proposition 5.3 determines the inner conjugacy classes of C∗-morphisms for A into a fixed B in terms of certain projective systems of matrices with nonnegative integer entries. Proposition 5.6 gives a necessary and sufficient condition for injectability of an AF algebra into a fixed B in similar terms.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Jerome Keisler : Foundations of Infinitesimal Calculus
    FOUNDATIONS OF INFINITESIMAL CALCULUS H. JEROME KEISLER Department of Mathematics University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA [email protected] June 4, 2011 ii This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial- Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Copyright c 2007 by H. Jerome Keisler CONTENTS Preface................................................................ vii Chapter 1. The Hyperreal Numbers.............................. 1 1A. Structure of the Hyperreal Numbers (x1.4, x1.5) . 1 1B. Standard Parts (x1.6)........................................ 5 1C. Axioms for the Hyperreal Numbers (xEpilogue) . 7 1D. Consequences of the Transfer Axiom . 9 1E. Natural Extensions of Sets . 14 1F. Appendix. Algebra of the Real Numbers . 19 1G. Building the Hyperreal Numbers . 23 Chapter 2. Differentiation........................................ 33 2A. Derivatives (x2.1, x2.2) . 33 2B. Infinitesimal Microscopes and Infinite Telescopes . 35 2C. Properties of Derivatives (x2.3, x2.4) . 38 2D. Chain Rule (x2.6, x2.7). 41 Chapter 3. Continuous Functions ................................ 43 3A. Limits and Continuity (x3.3, x3.4) . 43 3B. Hyperintegers (x3.8) . 47 3C. Properties of Continuous Functions (x3.5{x3.8) . 49 Chapter 4. Integration ............................................ 59 4A. The Definite Integral (x4.1) . 59 4B. Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (x4.2) . 64 4C. Second Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (x4.2) . 67 Chapter 5. Limits ................................................... 71 5A. "; δ Conditions for Limits (x5.8, x5.1) . 71 5B. L'Hospital's Rule (x5.2) . 74 Chapter 6. Applications of the Integral........................ 77 6A. Infinite Sum Theorem (x6.1, x6.2, x6.6) . 77 6B. Lengths of Curves (x6.3, x6.4) .
    [Show full text]
  • Extremal Axioms
    Extremal axioms Jerzy Pogonowski Extremal axioms Logical, mathematical and cognitive aspects Poznań 2019 scientific committee Jerzy Brzeziński, Agnieszka Cybal-Michalska, Zbigniew Drozdowicz (chair of the committee), Rafał Drozdowski, Piotr Orlik, Jacek Sójka reviewer Prof. dr hab. Jan Woleński First edition cover design Robert Domurat cover photo Przemysław Filipowiak english supervision Jonathan Weber editors Jerzy Pogonowski, Michał Staniszewski c Copyright by the Social Science and Humanities Publishers AMU 2019 c Copyright by Jerzy Pogonowski 2019 Publication supported by the National Science Center research grant 2015/17/B/HS1/02232 ISBN 978-83-64902-78-9 ISBN 978-83-7589-084-6 social science and humanities publishers adam mickiewicz university in poznań 60-568 Poznań, ul. Szamarzewskiego 89c www.wnsh.amu.edu.pl, [email protected], tel. (61) 829 22 54 wydawnictwo fundacji humaniora 60-682 Poznań, ul. Biegańskiego 30A www.funhum.home.amu.edu.pl, [email protected], tel. 519 340 555 printed by: Drukarnia Scriptor Gniezno Contents Preface 9 Part I Logical aspects 13 Chapter 1 Mathematical theories and their models 15 1.1 Theories in polymathematics and monomathematics . 16 1.2 Types of models and their comparison . 20 1.3 Classification and representation theorems . 32 1.4 Which mathematical objects are standard? . 35 Chapter 2 Historical remarks concerning extremal axioms 43 2.1 Origin of the notion of isomorphism . 43 2.2 The notions of completeness . 46 2.3 Extremal axioms: first formulations . 49 2.4 The work of Carnap and Bachmann . 63 2.5 Further developments . 71 Chapter 3 The expressive power of logic and limitative theorems 73 3.1 Expressive versus deductive power of logic .
    [Show full text]
  • Infinitesimal Methods in Mathematical Economics
    Infinitesimal Methods in Mathematical Economics Robert M. Anderson1 Department of Economics and Department of Mathematics University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. and Department of Economics Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218, U.S.A. January 20, 2008 1The author is grateful to Marc Bettz¨uge, Don Brown, Hung- Wen Chang, G´erard Debreu, Eddie Dekel-Tabak, Greg Engl, Dmitri Ivanov, Jerry Keisler, Peter Loeb, Paul MacMillan, Mike Magill, Andreu Mas-Colell, Max Stinchcombe, Cathy Wein- berger and Bill Zame for their helpful comments. Financial sup- port from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Gottfried-Wilhelm- Leibniz-F¨orderpreis is gratefully acknowledged. Contents 0Preface v 1 Nonstandard Analysis Lite 1 1.1 When is Nonstandard Analysis Useful? . 1 1.1.1 Large Economies . 2 1.1.2 Continuum of Random Variables . 4 1.1.3 Searching For Elementary Proofs . 4 1.2IdealElements................. 5 1.3Ultraproducts.................. 6 1.4InternalandExternalSets........... 9 1.5NotationalConventions............. 11 1.6StandardModels................ 12 1.7 Superstructure Embeddings . 14 1.8AFormalLanguage............... 16 1.9TransferPrinciple................ 16 1.10Saturation.................... 18 1.11InternalDefinitionPrinciple.......... 19 1.12 Nonstandard Extensions, or Enough Already with the Ultraproducts . 20 1.13HyperfiniteSets................. 21 1.14 Nonstandard Theorems Have Standard Proofs 22 2 Nonstandard Analysis Regular 23 2.1 Warning: Do Not Read this Chapter . 23 i ii CONTENTS 2.2AFormalLanguage............... 23 2.3 Extensions of L ................. 25 2.4 Assigning Truth Value to Formulas . 28 2.5 Interpreting Formulas in Superstructure Em- beddings..................... 32 2.6TransferPrinciple................ 33 2.7InternalDefinitionPrinciple.......... 34 2.8NonstandardExtensions............ 35 2.9TheExternalLanguage............. 36 2.10TheConservationPrinciple.......... 37 3RealAnalysis 39 3.1Monads..................... 39 3.2OpenandClosedSets............. 44 3.3Compactness.................
    [Show full text]
  • Hyperfinite Construction of G-Expectation
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Fadina, Tolulope; Herzberg, Frederik Working Paper Hyperfinite construction of G-expectation Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers, No. 540 Provided in Cooperation with: Center for Mathematical Economics (IMW), Bielefeld University Suggested Citation: Fadina, Tolulope; Herzberg, Frederik (2015) : Hyperfinite construction of G- expectation, Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers, No. 540, Bielefeld University, Center for Mathematical Economics (IMW), Bielefeld, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0070-pub-27324854 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/111073 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching Infinitesimal Calculus in High School with Infinitesimals
    INSTITUT FOR NATURFAGENES DIDAKTIK KØBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET Teaching infinitesimal calculus in high school with infinitesimals Mikkel Mathias Lindahl og Jonas Kyhnæb Kandidatspeciale September 2016 IND’s studenterserie nr. 53 INSTITUT FOR NATURFAGENES DIDAKTIK, www.ind.ku.dk Alle publikationer fra IND er tilgængelige via hjemmesiden. IND’s studenterserie 43. Lene Eriksen: Studie og forskningsforløb om modellering med variabelsammenhænge (2015) 44. Caroline Sofie Poulsen: Basic Algebra in the transition from lower secondary school to high school 45. Rasmus Olsen Svensson: Komparativ undersøgelse af deduktiv og induktiv matematikundervisning 46. Leonora Simony: Teaching authentic cutting-edge science to high school students(2016) 47. Lotte Nørtoft: The Trigonometric Functions - The transition from geometric tools to functions (2016) 48. Aske Henriksen: Pattern Analysis as Entrance to Algebraic Proof Situations at C-level (2016) 49. Maria Hørlyk Møller Kongshavn: Gymnasieelevers og Lærerstuderendes Viden Om Rationale Tal (2016) 50. Anne Kathrine Wellendorf Knudsen and Line Steckhahn Sørensen: The Themes of Trigonometry and Power Functions in Relation to the CAS Tool GeoGebra (2016) 51. Camilla Margrethe Mattson: A Study on Teacher Knowledge Employing Hypothetical Teacher Tasks - Based on the Principles of the Anthropological Theory of Didactics (2016) 52. Tanja Rosenberg Nielsen: Logical aspects of equations and equation solving - Upper secondary school students’ practices with equations (2016) 53. Mikkel Mathias Lindahl and Jonas Kyhnæb: Teaching infinitesimal calculus in high school - with infinitesimals (2016) Se tideligere serier på: www.ind.ku.dk/publikationer/studenterserien/ Abstract In high school students have their first encounter with the notion of infinitesimal calculus. A common problem encountered when introducing this subject is for the students to understand the theory behind the techniques they develop when being taught this.
    [Show full text]
  • Cauchy's Infinitesimals, His Sum Theorem, and Foundational
    Found Sci (2018) 23:267–296 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-017-9534-y Cauchy’s Infinitesimals, His Sum Theorem, and Foundational Paradigms 1 2 3 Tiziana Bascelli • Piotr Błaszczyk • Alexandre Borovik • 4 5 5 Vladimir Kanovei • Karin U. Katz • Mikhail G. Katz • 6 7 8 Semen S. Kutateladze • Thomas McGaffey • David M. Schaps • David Sherry9 Published online: 24 June 2017 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017 Abstract Cauchy’s sum theorem is a prototype of what is today a basic result on the convergence of a series of functions in undergraduate analysis. We seek to interpret Cauchy’s proof, and discuss the related epistemological questions involved in comparing distinct interpretive paradigms. Cauchy’s proof is often interpreted in the modern frame- work of a Weierstrassian paradigm. We analyze Cauchy’s proof closely and show that it finds closer proxies in a different modern framework. Keywords Cauchy’s infinitesimal Á Sum theorem Á Quantifier alternation Á Uniform convergence Á Foundational paradigms & Mikhail G. Katz [email protected] Tiziana Bascelli [email protected] Piotr Błaszczyk [email protected] Alexandre Borovik [email protected] Vladimir Kanovei [email protected] Karin U. Katz [email protected] Semen S. Kutateladze [email protected] Thomas McGaffey [email protected] David M. Schaps [email protected] David Sherry [email protected] 123 268 T. Bascelli et al. 1 Introduction Infinitesimals were to disappear from mathematical practice in the face of Weierstrass’ e and d notation. (Bottazzini 1986, p. 208) Nearly two centuries after Cauchy first published his controversial sum theorem, his- torians are still arguing over the nature of its hypotheses and Cauchy’s modification thereof in a subsequent paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Matheology.Pdf
    Matheology § 001 A matheologian is a man, or, in rare cases, a woman, who believes in thoughts that nobody can think, except, perhaps, a God, or, in rare cases, a Goddess. § 002 Can the existence of God be proved from mathematics? Gödel proved the existence of God in a relatively complicated way using the positive and negative properties introduced by Leibniz and the axiomatic method ("the axiomatic method is very powerful", he said with a faint smile). http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html http://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~beckert/Lehre/Seminar-LogikaufAbwegen/graf_folien.pdf Couldn't the following simple way be more effective? 1) The set of real numbers is uncountable. 2) Humans can only identify countably many words. 3) Humans cannot distinguish what they cannot identify. 4) Humans cannot well-order what they cannot distinguish. 5) The real numbers can be well-ordered. 6) If this is true, then there must be a being with higher capacities than any human. QED [I K Rus: "Can the existence of god be proved from mathematics?", philosophy.stackexchange, May 1, 2012] http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2702/can-the-existence-of-god-be-proved-from- mathematics The appending discussion is not electrifying for mathematicians. But a similar question had been asked by I K Rus in MathOverflow. There the following more educational discussion occurred (unfortunately it is no longer accessible there). (3) breaks down, because although I can't identify (i.e. literally "list") every real number between 0 and 1, if I am given any two real numbers in that interval then I can distinguish them.
    [Show full text]
  • True Infinitesimal Differential Geometry Mikhail G. Katz∗ Vladimir
    True infinitesimal differential geometry Mikhail G. Katz∗ Vladimir Kanovei Tahl Nowik M. Katz, Department of Mathematics, Bar Ilan Univer- sity, Ramat Gan 52900 Israel E-mail address: [email protected] V. Kanovei, IPPI, Moscow, and MIIT, Moscow, Russia E-mail address: [email protected] T. Nowik, Department of Mathematics, Bar Ilan Uni- versity, Ramat Gan 52900 Israel E-mail address: [email protected] ∗Supported by the Israel Science Foundation grant 1517/12. Abstract. This text is based on two courses taught at Bar Ilan University. One is the undergraduate course 89132 taught to groups of about 120, 130, and 150 freshmen during the ’14-’15, ’15-’16, and ’16-’17 academic years. This course exploits infinitesimals to introduce all the basic concepts of the calculus, mainly following Keisler’s textbook. The other is the graduate course 88826 that has been taught to between 5 and 10 graduate students yearly for the past several years. Much of what we write here is deeply affected by this pedagogical experience. The graduate course develops two viewpoints on infinitesimal generators of flows on manifolds. The classical notion of an infini- tesimal generator of a flow on a manifold is a (classical) vector field whose relation to the actual flow is expressed via integration. A true infinitesimal framework allows one to re-develop the founda- tions of differential geometry in this area. The True Infinitesimal Differential Geometry (TIDG) framework enables a more transpar- ent relation between the infinitesimal generator and the flow. Namely, we work with a combinatorial object called a hyper- real walk with infinitesimal step, constructed by hyperfinite iter- ation.
    [Show full text]
  • FOUNDATIONS of NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS a Gentle Introduction to Nonstandard Extensions
    FOUNDATIONS OF NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS A Gentle Introduction to Nonstandard Extensions C. WARD HENSON University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Mathematics 1409 West Green Street Urbana, Illinois 61801 USA email: [email protected] 1. Introduction There are many introductions to nonstandard analysis, (some of which are listed in the References) so why write another one? All of the existing introductions have one or more of the following features: (A) heavy use of logical formalism right from the start; (B) early introduction of set theoretic apparatus in excess of what is needed for most applications; (C) dependence on an explicit construction of the nonstandard model, usually by means of the ultrapower construction. All three of these features have negative consequences. The early use of logical formalism or set theoretic structures is often uncomfortable for mathematicians who do not have a background in logic, and this can ef- fectively deter them from using nonstandard methods. The explicit use of a particular nonstandard model makes the foundations too specific and in- flexible, and often inhibits the free use of the ideas of nonstandard analysis. In this exposition we intend to avoid these disadvantages. The readers for whom we have written are experienced mathematicians (including advanced students) who do not necessarily have any background in or even tolerance for symbolic logic. We hope to convince such readers that nonstandard methods are accessible and that the small amount of logical notation which turns out to be useful in applying them is actually simple and natural. Of course readers who do have a background in logic may also find this approach useful.
    [Show full text]