DOCSLIB.ORG

A Categorical Theory of Hybrid Systems by Aaron David Ames B.A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Categorical Theory of Hybrid Systems by Aaron David Ames B.A A Categorical Theory of Hybrid Systems by Aaron David Ames B.A. (University of St. Thomas) 2001 B.S. (University of St. Thomas) 2001 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering—Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Shankar Sastry, Chair Professor Mariusz Wodzicki Professor Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli Fall 2006 The dissertation of Aaron David Ames is approved: Chair Date Date Date University of California, Berkeley Fall 2006 A Categorical Theory of Hybrid Systems Copyright 2006 by Aaron David Ames Abstract A Categorical Theory of Hybrid Systems by Aaron David Ames Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering—Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California, Berkeley Professor Shankar Sastry, Chair This dissertation uses the formalism of category theory to study hybrid phenomena. One be- gins with a collection of “non-hybrid” mathematical objects that have been well-studied, together with a notion of how these objects are related to one another; that is, one begins with a category C of the non- hybrid objects of interest. The objects being considered can be “hybridized” by considering hybrid objects over C consisting of pairs (D,A) where D is a small category of a specific form, termed a D-category, which encodes the discrete structure of the hybrid object and A : D C → is a functor encoding its continuous structure. The end result is the category of hybrid objects over C, denoted by Hy(C). In Part I, the foundations for the theory of hybrid objects are established. After reviewing the basics of category theory, inasmuch as they will be needed in this dissertation, D-categories are formally introduced. Hybrid objects over a general category C are then defined along with the corresponding no- tion of a category of hybrid objects. Elementary properties of categories of this form are discussed. We then proceed to relate the formalism of hybrid objects to hybrid systems in their classical form, the end re- sult of which is a categorical formulation of hybrid systems together with a constructive correspondence between classical hybrid systems and their categorical counterpart. Finally, executions or trajectories of both classical and categorical hybrid systems are introduced, and they are related to one another—again in a constructive fashion. Part II applies the categorical theory of hybrid objects to obtain novel results related to the re- duction and stability of hybrid systems. The geometric reduction of simple hybrid systems is first con- sidered, e.g., conditions are given on when robotic systems undergoing impacts can be reduced. As an application of these results, it is shown that a three-dimensional bipedal robotic walker can be reduced to a two-dimensional bipedal walker; the result is walking gaits in three-dimensions based on correspond- ing walking gaits for a two dimensional biped—walking gaits that simultaneously stabilize the walker to 1 the upright position. Using hybrid objects, the reduction results for simple hybrid systems are general- ized to general hybrid systems; to do so, many familiar geometric objects—manifolds, differential forms, et cetera—are first “hybrizied.” The end result is a hybrid reduction theorem much in the spirt of the clas- sical geometric reduction theorem. This part of the dissertation concludes with a partial characterization of Zeno behavior in hybrid systems. A new type of equilibria, Zeno equilibria, is introduced and sufficient conditions for the stability of these equilibria are given. Since the stability of these equilibria correspond to the existence of Zeno behavior, the end result is sufficient conditions for the existence of Zeno behavior. The final portion of this dissertation, Part III, lays the groundwork for a categorical theory, not of hybrid systems, but of networked systems. It is shown that a network of tagged systems correspond to a network over the category of tagged systems and that taking the composition of such a network is equiva- lent to taking the limit; this allows us to derive necessary and sufficient conditions for the preservation of semantics, and thus illustrates the possible descriptive power of categories of hybrid and network objects. Professor Shankar Sastry Dissertation Committee Chair 2 To my mother, Catherine A. Bartlett, for always nurturing my talents, giving me the strength to pursue them and the wisdom to know how. i Contents Table of Contents ii List of Figures iv List of Tables vi Introduction vii I Foundations 1 1 Hybrid Objects 2 1.1 Categories . 4 1.2 D-categories . 13 1.3 Hybrid Objects . 24 1.4 Cohybrid Objects . 31 1.5 Network Objects . 35 2 Hybrid Systems 38 2.1 Hybrid Systems . 39 2.2 Hybrid Intervals . 52 2.3 Hybrid Trajectories . 57 II Hybrid Systems 65 3 Simple Hybrid Reduction & Bipedal Robotic Walking 66 3.1 Simple Hybrid Lagrangians & Simple Hybrid Mechanical Systems . 69 3.2 Simple Hybrid Systems . 74 3.3 Hybrid Routhian Reduction . 79 3.4 Simple Hybrid Reduction . 88 3.5 Bipedal Robotic Walking . 98 4 Hybrid Geometric Mechanics 117 4.1 Hybrid Differential Forms . 121 4.2 Hybrid Lie Groups and Algebras . 126 4.3 Hybrid Momentum Maps . 131 4.4 Hybrid Manifold Reduction . 137 4.5 Hybrid Hamiltonian Reduction . 141 ii 5 Zeno Behavior & Hybrid Stability Theory 147 5.1 Zeno Behavior . 149 5.2 First Quadrant Hybrid Systems . 152 5.3 Zeno Behavior in DFQ Hybrid Systems . 156 5.4 Stability of Zeno Equilibria . 166 5.5 Going Beyond Zeno . 178 III Networked Systems 188 6 Universally Composing Embedded Systems 189 6.1 Universal Heterogeneous Composition . 191 6.2 Equivalent Deployments of Tagged Systems . 199 6.3 Networks of Tagged Systems . 203 6.4 Universally Composing Networks of Tagged Systems . 206 6.5 Semantics Preserving Deployments of Networks . 210 Appendix 213 A Limits 213 A.1 Products ..................................................213 A.2 Equalizers and Pullbacks . 218 A.3 Limits....................................................220 A.4 Limits in Categories of Hybrid Objects . 223 Future Directions 227 Bibliography 229 Index 238 iii List of Figures 1.1 The edge and vertex sets for a D-category. 16 2.1 The bouncing ball. 40 2.2 The hybrid model of a bouncing ball. 41 2.3 The hybrid model of a two water tank system. 43 2.4 The hybrid manifold for the bouncing ball. 46 2.5 The hybrid manifold for the water tank system. 47 2.6 A graphical illustration of an execution. 59 2.7 Positions and velocities over time of an execution of the bouncing ball hybrid system. 61 3.1 Ball bouncing on a sinusoidal surface. 71 3.2 Pendulum on a cart. 72 3.3 Spherical pendulum mounted on the floor. 74 3.4 Positions y1 vs. y2 and velocities over time of HBµ . ......................... 86 3.5 Positions and velocities over time, as reconstructed from the reduced system HCµ . 88 3.6 Reconstruction of the reduced spherical pendulum: position of the mass and angular veloc- itiesovertime................................................ 97 3.7 Two-dimensional bipedal robot. 107 3.8 Three-dimensional bipedal robot. 110 3.9 θns, θs and ϕ over time for a stable walking gait and different initial values of ϕ. 113 3.10 Phase portraits for a stable walking gait. The black region shows the initial conditions of ϕ and ϕ˙ that converge to the origin. 114 3.11 The initial configuration of the bipedal robot. 115 3.12 A walking sequence for the bipedal robot. 116 4.1 A trajectory of the two-dimensional (completed) bouncing ball model. 120 5.1 Zeno behavior that effectively makes a program (Matlab) halt. 150 5.2 An example of Genuine Zeno behavior (left). An example of Chattering Zeno behavior (right).151 ball 5.3 The hybrid system HFQ ..........................................153 5.4 The phase space of the diagonal system given in Example 5.3 for c 1 (left) and c 1 = = − (right). 159 5.5 A simulated trajectory of the two tank system given in Example 5.4. 165 5.6 Zeno equilibria for a FQ hybrid system. 168 5.7 A graphical representation of the “local” nature of relatively globally asymptotically stable Zeno equilibria. 170 5.8 Convergence to a Zeno equilibria. 171 5.9 Graphical verification of the properties (I) (III) for the bouncing ball hybrid system for the − first domain (left) and the second domain (right). 175 iv 5.10 A graphical illustration of the construction of the functions P1 and P2 for the bouncing ball. 176 5.11 A Lagrangian hybrid system: HL.....................................179 5.12 A completed hybrid system: HL. ....................................181 5.13 Simulation gets stuck at the Zeno point. Velocities over the time (top), displacements over the time (middle) and displacement on the x3 direction vs. the displacement on the x2 di- rection (bottom). 183 5.14 Simulation goes beyond the Zeno point. Velocities over the time (top), displacements over the time (middle) and displacement on the x3 direction vs. the displacement on the x2 di- rection (bottom). 184 5.15 Simulation of the Cart that goes beyond the Zeno point. Velocities over the time (top) and displacements over the time (bottom). 186 5.16 Simulation of the Pendulum goes beyond the Zeno point. Angular velocities over the time (top) and angles over the time (bottom). 187 6.1 A graphical representation of a behavior of a tagged system. 193 v List of Tables 0.1 Chapter dependency chart. ix 1.1 Important.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Seven Virtues of Simple Type Theory
    The Seven Virtues of Simple Type Theory William M. Farmer∗ McMaster University 26 November 2006 Abstract Simple type theory, also known as higher-order logic, is a natural ex- tension of first-order logic which is simple, elegant, highly expressive, and practical. This paper surveys the virtues of simple type theory and attempts to show that simple type theory is an attractive alterna- tive to first-order logic for practical-minded scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. It recommends that simple type theory be incorpo- rated into introductory logic courses offered by mathematics depart- ments and into the undergraduate curricula for computer science and software engineering students. 1 Introduction Mathematicians are committed to rigorous reasoning, but they usually shy away from formal logic. However, when mathematicians really need a for- mal logic—e.g., to teach their students the rules of quantification, to pin down exactly what a “property” is, or to formalize set theory—they almost invariably choose some form of first-order logic. Taking the lead of mathe- maticians, scientists and engineers usually choose first-order logic whenever they need a formal logic to express mathematical models precisely or to study the logical consequences of theories and specifications carefully. In science and engineering as well as in mathematics, first-order logic reigns supreme! A formal logic can be a theoretical tool for studying rigorous reasoning and a practical tool for performing rigorous reasoning. Today mathemati- cians sometimes use formal logics as theoretical tools, but they very rarely ∗ Address: Department of Computing and Software, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructive Models of Uncountably Categorical Theories
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 127, Number 12, Pages 3711{3719 S 0002-9939(99)04920-5 Article electronically published on May 6, 1999 CONSTRUCTIVE MODELS OF UNCOUNTABLY CATEGORICAL THEORIES BERNHARD HERWIG, STEFFEN LEMPP, AND MARTIN ZIEGLER (Communicated by Carl G. Jockusch, Jr.) Abstract. We construct a strongly minimal (and thus uncountably categori- cal) but not totally categorical theory in a finite language of binary predicates whose only constructive (or recursive) model is the prime model. 0. Introduction Effective (or recursive) model theory studies the degree to which constructions in model theory and algebra can be made effective. A presentation of a count- able model is an isomorphic copy with universe N = !.Aneffective (or computable,orMrecursive) presentation isN one where all the relations, functions, and constants on are given by uniformly computable functions. Now, for a count- able model N of a first-order theory T , there are various degrees to which the constructionM of can be made effective: We call the model constructive (or recursive,orcomputableM ) if it has an effective presentation, orM equivalently if its open diagram (i.e., the collection of all quantifier-free sentences true in ( ;a)a M (in some presentation) is computable (or recursive)). We call the modelM decid-∈ able if its elementary diagram (i.e., the collection of all first-order sentencesM true in ( ;a)a M,insome presentation) is decidable (i.e., computable). Obviously, anyM decidable∈ model is constructive, but the converse fails. In fact, the study of constructive models is much harder than the study of decidable models since, in the former case, much less is known about the first-order theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond First Order Logic: from Number of Structures to Structure of Numbers Part Ii
    Bulletin of the Iranian Mathematical Society Vol. XX No. X (201X), pp XX-XX. BEYOND FIRST ORDER LOGIC: FROM NUMBER OF STRUCTURES TO STRUCTURE OF NUMBERS PART II JOHN BALDWIN, TAPANI HYTTINEN AND MEERI KESÄLÄ Communicated by Abstract. The paper studies the history and recent developments in non-elementary model theory focusing in the framework of ab- stract elementary classes. We discuss the role of syntax and seman- tics and the motivation to generalize first order model theory to non-elementary frameworks and illuminate the study with concrete examples of classes of models. This second part continues to study the question of catecoricity transfer and counting the number of structures of certain cardi- nality. We discuss more thoroughly the role of countable models, search for a non-elementary counterpart for the concept of com- pleteness and present two examples: One example answers a ques- tion asked by David Kueker and the other investigates models of Peano Arihmetic and the relation of an elementary end-extension in the terms of an abstract elementary class. Beyond First Order Logic: From number of structures to structure of numbers Part I studied the basic concepts in non-elementary model theory, such as syntax and semantics, the languages Lλκ and the notion of a complete theory in first order logic (i.e. in the language L!!), which determines an elementary class of structures. Classes of structures which cannot be axiomatized as the models of a first-order theory, but might have some other ’logical’ unifying attribute, are called non-elementary. MSC(2010): Primary: 65F05; Secondary: 46L05, 11Y50.
    [Show full text]
  • A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints
    A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Copyright c 2003 by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Abstract A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto 2003 Eliciting the requirements for a proposed system typically involves different stakeholders with different expertise, responsibilities, and perspectives. This may result in inconsis- tencies between the descriptions provided by stakeholders. Viewpoints-based approaches have been proposed as a way to manage incomplete and inconsistent models gathered from multiple sources. In this thesis, we propose a category-theoretic framework for the analysis of fuzzy viewpoints. Informally, a fuzzy viewpoint is a graph in which the elements of a lattice are used to specify the amount of knowledge available about the details of nodes and edges. By defining an appropriate notion of morphism between fuzzy viewpoints, we construct categories of fuzzy viewpoints and prove that these categories are (finitely) cocomplete. We then show how colimits can be employed to merge the viewpoints and detect the inconsistencies that arise independent of any particular choice of viewpoint semantics. Taking advantage of the same category-theoretic techniques used in defining fuzzy viewpoints, we will also introduce a more general graph-based formalism that may find applications in other contexts. ii To my mother and father with love and gratitude. Acknowledgements First of all, I wish to thank my supervisor Steve Easterbrook for his guidance, support, and patience.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations
    Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations Evan Patterson Department of Statistics, Stanford University Abstract We introduce the relational ontology log, or relational olog, a knowledge representation system based on the category of sets and relations. It is inspired by Spivak and Kent’s olog, a recent categorical framework for knowledge representation. Relational ologs interpolate between ologs and description logic, the dominant formalism for knowledge representation today. In this paper, we investigate relational ologs both for their own sake and to gain insight into the relationship between the algebraic and logical approaches to knowledge representation. On a practical level, we show by example that relational ologs have a friendly and intuitive—yet fully precise—graphical syntax, derived from the string diagrams of monoidal categories. We explain several other useful features of relational ologs not possessed by most description logics, such as a type system and a rich, flexible notion of instance data. In a more theoretical vein, we draw on categorical logic to show how relational ologs can be translated to and from logical theories in a fragment of first-order logic. Although we make extensive use of categorical language, this paper is designed to be self-contained and has considerable expository content. The only prerequisites are knowledge of first-order logic and the rudiments of category theory. 1. Introduction arXiv:1706.00526v2 [cs.AI] 1 Nov 2017 The representation of human knowledge in computable form is among the oldest and most fundamental problems of artificial intelligence. Several recent trends are stimulating continued research in the field of knowledge representation (KR).
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and Categories As Tools for Building Theories
    Logic and Categories As Tools For Building Theories Samson Abramsky Oxford University Computing Laboratory 1 Introduction My aim in this short article is to provide an impression of some of the ideas emerging at the interface of logic and computer science, in a form which I hope will be accessible to philosophers. Why is this even a good idea? Because there has been a huge interaction of logic and computer science over the past half-century which has not only played an important r^olein shaping Computer Science, but has also greatly broadened the scope and enriched the content of logic itself.1 This huge effect of Computer Science on Logic over the past five decades has several aspects: new ways of using logic, new attitudes to logic, new questions and methods. These lead to new perspectives on the question: What logic is | and should be! Our main concern is with method and attitude rather than matter; nevertheless, we shall base the general points we wish to make on a case study: Category theory. Many other examples could have been used to illustrate our theme, but this will serve to illustrate some of the points we wish to make. 2 Category Theory Category theory is a vast subject. It has enormous potential for any serious version of `formal philosophy' | and yet this has hardly been realized. We shall begin with introduction to some basic elements of category theory, focussing on the fascinating conceptual issues which arise even at the most elementary level of the subject, and then discuss some its consequences and philosophical ramifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Categorical Databases
    Categorical databases David I. Spivak [email protected] Mathematics Department Massachusetts Institute of Technology Presented on 2014/02/28 at Oracle David I. Spivak (MIT) Categorical databases Presented on 2014/02/28 1 / 1 Introduction Purpose of the talk Purpose of the talk There is an fundamental connection between databases and categories. Category theory can simplify how we think about and use databases. We can clearly see all the working parts and how they fit together. Powerful theorems can be brought to bear on classical DB problems. David I. Spivak (MIT) Categorical databases Presented on 2014/02/28 2 / 1 Introduction The pros and cons of relational databases The pros and cons of relational databases Relational databases are reliable, scalable, and popular. They are provably reliable to the extent that they strictly adhere to the underlying mathematics. Make a distinction between the system you know and love, vs. the relational model, as a mathematical foundation for this system. David I. Spivak (MIT) Categorical databases Presented on 2014/02/28 3 / 1 Introduction The pros and cons of relational databases You're not really using the relational model. Current implementations have departed from the strict relational formalism: Tables may not be relational (duplicates, e.g from a query). Nulls (and labeled nulls) are commonly used. The theory of relations (150 years old) is not adequate to mathematically describe modern DBMS. The relational model does not offer guidance for schema mappings and data migration. Databases have been intuitively moving toward what's best described with a more modern mathematical foundation. David I.
    [Show full text]
  • An Outline of Algebraic Set Theory
    An Outline of Algebraic Set Theory Steve Awodey Dedicated to Saunders Mac Lane, 1909–2005 Abstract This survey article is intended to introduce the reader to the field of Algebraic Set Theory, in which models of set theory of a new and fascinating kind are determined algebraically. The method is quite robust, admitting adjustment in several respects to model different theories including classical, intuitionistic, bounded, and predicative ones. Under this scheme some familiar set theoretic properties are related to algebraic ones, like freeness, while others result from logical constraints, like definability. The overall theory is complete in two important respects: conventional elementary set theory axiomatizes the class of algebraic models, and the axioms provided for the abstract algebraic framework itself are also complete with respect to a range of natural models consisting of “ideals” of sets, suitably defined. Some previous results involving realizability, forcing, and sheaf models are subsumed, and the prospects for further such unification seem bright. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 The category of classes 10 2.1 Smallmaps ............................ 12 2.2 Powerclasses............................ 14 2.3 UniversesandInfinity . 15 2.4 Classcategories .......................... 16 2.5 Thetoposofsets ......................... 17 3 Algebraic models of set theory 18 3.1 ThesettheoryBIST ....................... 18 3.2 Algebraic soundness of BIST . 20 3.3 Algebraic completeness of BIST . 21 4 Classes as ideals of sets 23 4.1 Smallmapsandideals . .. .. 24 4.2 Powerclasses and universes . 26 4.3 Conservativity........................... 29 5 Ideal models 29 5.1 Freealgebras ........................... 29 5.2 Collection ............................. 30 5.3 Idealcompleteness . .. .. 32 6 Variations 33 References 36 2 1 Introduction Algebraic set theory (AST) is a new approach to the construction of models of set theory, invented by Andr´eJoyal and Ieke Moerdijk and first presented in [16].
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Similarity in the Foundations
    Self-similarity in the Foundations Paul K. Gorbow Thesis submitted for the degree of Ph.D. in Logic, defended on June 14, 2018. Supervisors: Ali Enayat (primary) Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine (secondary) Zachiri McKenzie (secondary) University of Gothenburg Department of Philosophy, Linguistics, and Theory of Science Box 200, 405 30 GOTEBORG,¨ Sweden arXiv:1806.11310v1 [math.LO] 29 Jun 2018 2 Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Introductiontoageneralaudience . ..... 5 1.2 Introduction for logicians . .. 7 2 Tour of the theories considered 11 2.1 PowerKripke-Plateksettheory . .... 11 2.2 Stratifiedsettheory ................................ .. 13 2.3 Categorical semantics and algebraic set theory . ....... 17 3 Motivation 19 3.1 Motivation behind research on embeddings between models of set theory. 19 3.2 Motivation behind stratified algebraic set theory . ...... 20 4 Logic, set theory and non-standard models 23 4.1 Basiclogicandmodeltheory ............................ 23 4.2 Ordertheoryandcategorytheory. ...... 26 4.3 PowerKripke-Plateksettheory . .... 28 4.4 First-order logic and partial satisfaction relations internal to KPP ........ 32 4.5 Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and G¨odel-Bernays class theory............ 36 4.6 Non-standardmodelsofsettheory . ..... 38 5 Embeddings between models of set theory 47 5.1 Iterated ultrapowers with special self-embeddings . ......... 47 5.2 Embeddingsbetweenmodelsofsettheory . ..... 57 5.3 Characterizations.................................. .. 66 6 Stratified set theory and categorical semantics 73 6.1 Stratifiedsettheoryandclasstheory . ...... 73 6.2 Categoricalsemantics ............................... .. 77 7 Stratified algebraic set theory 85 7.1 Stratifiedcategoriesofclasses . ..... 85 7.2 Interpretation of the Set-theories in the Cat-theories ................ 90 7.3 ThesubtoposofstronglyCantorianobjects . ....... 99 8 Where to go from here? 103 8.1 Category theoretic approach to embeddings between models of settheory .
    [Show full text]
  • More Model Theory Notes Miscellaneous Information, Loosely Organized
    More Model Theory Notes Miscellaneous information, loosely organized. 1. Kinds of Models A countable homogeneous model M is one such that, for any partial elementary map f : A ! M with A ⊆ M finite, and any a 2 M, f extends to a partial elementary map A [ fag ! M. As a consequence, any partial elementary map to M is extendible to an automorphism of M. Atomic models (see below) are homogeneous. A prime model of T is one that elementarily embeds into every other model of T of the same cardinality. Any theory with fewer than continuum-many types has a prime model, and if a theory has a prime model, it is unique up to isomorphism. Prime models are homogeneous. On the other end, a model is universal if every other model of its size elementarily embeds into it. Recall a type is a set of formulas with the same tuple of free variables; generally to be called a type we require consistency. The type of an element or tuple from a model is all the formulas it satisfies. One might think of the type of an element as a sort of identity card for automorphisms: automorphisms of a model preserve types. A complete type is the analogue of a complete theory, one where every formula of the appropriate free variables or its negation appears. Types of elements and tuples are always complete. A type is principal if there is one formula in the type that implies all the rest; principal complete types are often called isolated. A trivial example of an isolated type is that generated by the formula x = c where c is any constant in the language, or x = t(¯c) where t is any composition of appropriate-arity functions andc ¯ is a tuple of constants.
    [Show full text]
  • On Categorical Theory-Building: Beyond the Formal
    Andrei Rodin (Ecole Normale Superieure) On Categorical Theory-Building: Beyond the Formal 1. Introduction: Languages, Foundations and Reification of Concepts The term "language" is colloquially used in mathematics to refer to a theory, which grasps common features of a large range (or even all) of other mathematical theories and so can serve as a unifying conceptual framework for these theories. "Set- theoretic language" is a case in point. The systematic work of translation of the whole of mathematics into the set-theoretic language has been endeavoured in 20-th century by a group of mathematicians under the collective name of Nicolas Bourbaki. Bourbakist mathematics proved successful both in research and higher education (albeit not in the school math education) and is practiced until today at mathematical departments worldwide. The project of Bourbaki as well as other attempts to do mathematics "set- theoretically" should be definitely distinguished from the project of reduction of mathematics to set theory defended by Quine and some other philosophers. This latter project is based on the claim that all true mathematical propositions are deducible from axioms of Zermelo-Frenkael set theory with Choice (ZFC) or another appropriate system of axioms for sets, so basically all the mathematics is set theory. A working mathematician usually sees this claim as an example of philosophical absurdity on a par with Zeno's claim that there is no motion, and Bourbaki never tried to put it forward. Actually Bourbaki used set theory (more precisely their own version of axiomatic theory of sets) for doing mathematics in very much the same way in which classical first-order logic is used for doing axiomatic theories like ZFC.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics and the Brain: a Category Theoretical Approach to Go Beyond the Neural Correlates of Consciousness
    entropy Review Mathematics and the Brain: A Category Theoretical Approach to Go Beyond the Neural Correlates of Consciousness 1,2,3, , 4,5,6,7, 8, Georg Northoff * y, Naotsugu Tsuchiya y and Hayato Saigo y 1 Mental Health Centre, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310058, China 2 Institute of Mental Health Research, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1Z 7K4 Canada 3 Centre for Cognition and Brain Disorders, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310036, China 4 School of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800, Australia; [email protected] 5 Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800, Australia 6 Advanced Telecommunication Research, Soraku-gun, Kyoto 619-0288, Japan 7 Center for Information and Neural Networks (CiNet), National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT), Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan 8 Nagahama Institute of Bio-Science and Technology, Nagahama 526-0829, Japan; [email protected] * Correspondence: georg.northoff@theroyal.ca All authors contributed equally to the paper as it was a conjoint and equally distributed work between all y three authors. Received: 18 July 2019; Accepted: 9 October 2019; Published: 17 December 2019 Abstract: Consciousness is a central issue in neuroscience, however, we still lack a formal framework that can address the nature of the relationship between consciousness and its physical substrates. In this review, we provide a novel mathematical framework of category theory (CT), in which we can define and study the sameness between different domains of phenomena such as consciousness and its neural substrates. CT was designed and developed to deal with the relationships between various domains of phenomena.
    [Show full text]