DOCSLIB.ORG

Stone Duality for Infinitary Logic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stone Duality for Infinitary Logic Stone duality for infinitary logic Ronnie Chen University of Illinois at Urbana{Champaign BLAST, May 21, 2019 syntax ! semantics Duality: ∗ algebra A ! dual space A where A∗ := Hom(A; K) for some fixed K For a theory T in a logic, syntactical algebra hT i ! space of models Mod(T ) Duality as completeness Duality theorem= strong completeness theorem for a logic. syntax ! semantics For a theory T in a logic, syntactical algebra hT i ! space of models Mod(T ) Duality as completeness Duality theorem= strong completeness theorem for a logic. Duality: ∗ algebra A ! dual space A where A∗ := Hom(A; K) for some fixed K syntax ! semantics Duality as completeness Duality theorem= strong completeness theorem for a logic. Duality: ∗ algebra A ! dual space A where A∗ := Hom(A; K) for some fixed K For a theory T in a logic, syntactical algebra hT i ! space of models Mod(T ) Duality as completeness Duality theorem= strong completeness theorem for a logic. Duality: ∗ algebra A ! dual space A where A∗ := Hom(A; K) for some fixed K For a theory T in a logic, syntactical algebra hT i ! space of models Mod(T ) syntax ! semantics Main examples I propositional logic L!0 (Stone duality) I first-order logic L!! (Makkai duality) I infinitary first-order logic L!1! =: hL j T i∗ Propositional logic L!0: formulas built from L using finite ^; _; : T : L!0-theory (set of L!0-formulas) Model of T : M : L! 2 = f0; 1g s.t. every φ 2 T 7! 1 (M j= T ) Mod(L; T ) := fmodels of T g ⊆ 2L Lindenbaum{Tarski algebra hL j T i := fL!0-formulasg=∼ where φ ∼ :() T ` φ , = Boolean algebra presented by generators L, relations T (= 1) Hence, Mod(L; T ) =∼ Bool(hL j T i; 2) (where C(A; B) := fmorphisms A ! B in category Cg) Propositional logic L : propositional language (set of atomic propositions) =: hL j T i∗ T : L!0-theory (set of L!0-formulas) Model of T : M : L! 2 = f0; 1g s.t. every φ 2 T 7! 1 (M j= T ) Mod(L; T ) := fmodels of T g ⊆ 2L Lindenbaum{Tarski algebra hL j T i := fL!0-formulasg=∼ where φ ∼ :() T ` φ , = Boolean algebra presented by generators L, relations T (= 1) Hence, Mod(L; T ) =∼ Bool(hL j T i; 2) (where C(A; B) := fmorphisms A ! B in category Cg) Propositional logic L : propositional language (set of atomic propositions) Propositional logic L!0: formulas built from L using finite ^; _; : =: hL j T i∗ Model of T : M : L! 2 = f0; 1g s.t. every φ 2 T 7! 1 (M j= T ) Mod(L; T ) := fmodels of T g ⊆ 2L Lindenbaum{Tarski algebra hL j T i := fL!0-formulasg=∼ where φ ∼ :() T ` φ , = Boolean algebra presented by generators L, relations T (= 1) Hence, Mod(L; T ) =∼ Bool(hL j T i; 2) (where C(A; B) := fmorphisms A ! B in category Cg) Propositional logic L : propositional language (set of atomic propositions) Propositional logic L!0: formulas built from L using finite ^; _; : T : L!0-theory (set of L!0-formulas) =: hL j T i∗ Lindenbaum{Tarski algebra hL j T i := fL!0-formulasg=∼ where φ ∼ :() T ` φ , = Boolean algebra presented by generators L, relations T (= 1) Hence, Mod(L; T ) =∼ Bool(hL j T i; 2) (where C(A; B) := fmorphisms A ! B in category Cg) Propositional logic L : propositional language (set of atomic propositions) Propositional logic L!0: formulas built from L using finite ^; _; : T : L!0-theory (set of L!0-formulas) Model of T : M : L! 2 = f0; 1g s.t. every φ 2 T 7! 1 (M j= T ) Mod(L; T ) := fmodels of T g ⊆ 2L =: hL j T i∗ Hence, Mod(L; T ) =∼ Bool(hL j T i; 2) (where C(A; B) := fmorphisms A ! B in category Cg) Propositional logic L : propositional language (set of atomic propositions) Propositional logic L!0: formulas built from L using finite ^; _; : T : L!0-theory (set of L!0-formulas) Model of T : M : L! 2 = f0; 1g s.t. every φ 2 T 7! 1 (M j= T ) Mod(L; T ) := fmodels of T g ⊆ 2L Lindenbaum{Tarski algebra hL j T i := fL!0-formulasg=∼ where φ ∼ :() T ` φ , = Boolean algebra presented by generators L, relations T (= 1) =: hL j T i∗ Propositional logic L : propositional language (set of atomic propositions) Propositional logic L!0: formulas built from L using finite ^; _; : T : L!0-theory (set of L!0-formulas) Model of T : M : L! 2 = f0; 1g s.t. every φ 2 T 7! 1 (M j= T ) Mod(L; T ) := fmodels of T g ⊆ 2L Lindenbaum{Tarski algebra hL j T i := fL!0-formulasg=∼ where φ ∼ :() T ` φ , = Boolean algebra presented by generators L, relations T (= 1) Hence, Mod(L; T ) =∼ Bool(hL j T i; 2) (where C(A; B) := fmorphisms A ! B in category Cg) Propositional logic L : propositional language (set of atomic propositions) Propositional logic L!0: formulas built from L using finite ^; _; : T : L!0-theory (set of L!0-formulas) Model of T : M : L! 2 = f0; 1g s.t. every φ 2 T 7! 1 (M j= T ) Mod(L; T ) := fmodels of T g ⊆ 2L Lindenbaum{Tarski algebra hL j T i := fL!0-formulasg=∼ where φ ∼ :() T ` φ , = Boolean algebra presented by generators L, relations T (= 1) Hence, Mod(L; T ) =∼ Bool(hL j T i; 2) =: hL j T i∗ (where C(A; B) := fmorphisms A ! B in category Cg) and we have a canonical evaluation map ηA : A −! a 7−! (x 7! x(a)): Hence for A 2 Bool, A∗ := Bool(A; 2) ⊆ 2A 2 Top; ∗ A∗∗ := Top(A∗; 2) ⊆ 2A 2 Bool Theorem (Stone duality { algebraic) ∗∗ For every A 2 Bool, ηA : A ! A is an isomorphism. Stone duality 2 is a dualizing object, i.e., has two commuting structures: I 2 2 Bool; I 2 2 Top (= topological spaces); I these two structures on 2 commute: ^; _; : are continuous. and we have a canonical evaluation map ηA : A −! a 7−! (x 7! x(a)): Theorem (Stone duality { algebraic) ∗∗ For every A 2 Bool, ηA : A ! A is an isomorphism. Stone duality 2 is a dualizing object, i.e., has two commuting structures: I 2 2 Bool; I 2 2 Top (= topological spaces); I these two structures on 2 commute: ^; _; : are continuous. Hence for A 2 Bool, A∗ := Bool(A; 2) ⊆ 2A 2 Top; ∗ A∗∗ := Top(A∗; 2) ⊆ 2A 2 Bool Theorem (Stone duality { algebraic) ∗∗ For every A 2 Bool, ηA : A ! A is an isomorphism. Stone duality 2 is a dualizing object, i.e., has two commuting structures: I 2 2 Bool; I 2 2 Top (= topological spaces); I these two structures on 2 commute: ^; _; : are continuous. Hence for A 2 Bool, A∗ := Bool(A; 2) ⊆ 2A 2 Top; and we have a canonical evaluation map ∗∗ ∗ A∗ ηA : A −! A := Top(A ; 2) ⊆ 2 2 Bool a 7−! (x 7! x(a)): Stone duality 2 is a dualizing object, i.e., has two commuting structures: I 2 2 Bool; I 2 2 Top (= topological spaces); I these two structures on 2 commute: ^; _; : are continuous. Hence for A 2 Bool, A∗ := Bool(A; 2) ⊆ 2A 2 Top; and we have a canonical evaluation map ∗∗ ∗ A∗ ηA : A −! A := Top(A ; 2) ⊆ 2 2 Bool a 7−! (x 7! x(a)): Theorem (Stone duality { algebraic) ∗∗ For every A 2 Bool, ηA : A ! A is an isomorphism. I injectivity: for any two L!0-formulas φ, , if φ , in all models of T , then T ` φ , (completeness theorem) I surjectivity: any clopen set of models is named by an L!0-formula (definability theorem) Strong completeness for L!0 When A = hL j T i for a propositional L!0-theory T , Stone duality becomes: Theorem (Stone duality { logical) For every L!0-theory T , we have an isomorphism ∗∗ ∼ ∗ ∼ ηT : hL j T i −! hL j T i = Mod(L; T ) = Clopen(Mod(L; T )) [φ] 7−! fM 2 Mod(L; T ) j M j= φg: I surjectivity: any clopen set of models is named by an L!0-formula (definability theorem) Strong completeness for L!0 When A = hL j T i for a propositional L!0-theory T , Stone duality becomes: Theorem (Stone duality { logical) For every L!0-theory T , we have an isomorphism ∗∗ ∼ ∗ ∼ ηT : hL j T i −! hL j T i = Mod(L; T ) = Clopen(Mod(L; T )) [φ] 7−! fM 2 Mod(L; T ) j M j= φg: I injectivity: for any two L!0-formulas φ, , if φ , in all models of T , then T ` φ , (completeness theorem) Strong completeness for L!0 When A = hL j T i for a propositional L!0-theory T , Stone duality becomes: Theorem (Stone duality { logical) For every L!0-theory T , we have an isomorphism ∗∗ ∼ ∗ ∼ ηT : hL j T i −! hL j T i = Mod(L; T ) = Clopen(Mod(L; T )) [φ] 7−! fM 2 Mod(L; T ) j M j= φg: I injectivity: for any two L!0-formulas φ, , if φ , in all models of T , then T ` φ , (completeness theorem) I surjectivity: any clopen set of models is named by an L!0-formula (definability theorem) The adjunction unit is the evaluation map ηA : A ! Top(Bool(A; 2); 2), an isomorphism. By a general fact about adjunctions, this is equivalent to: Theorem (Stone duality { algebraic, II) The functor Bool(−; 2) : Bool ! Topop is fully faithful, i.e., a bijection Bool(A; B) −!∼ Top(B∗; A∗) on each homset.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Topological Duality and Lattice Expansions Part I: a Topological Construction of Canonical Extensions
    TOPOLOGICAL DUALITY AND LATTICE EXPANSIONS PART I: A TOPOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTION OF CANONICAL EXTENSIONS M. ANDREW MOSHIER AND PETER JIPSEN 1. INTRODUCTION The two main objectives of this paper are (a) to prove topological duality theorems for semilattices and bounded lattices, and (b) to show that the topological duality from (a) provides a construction of canonical extensions of bounded lattices. The paper is first of two parts. The main objective of the sequel is to establish a characterization of lattice expansions, i.e., lattices with additional operations, in the topological setting built in this paper. Regarding objective (a), consider the following simple question: Is there a subcategory of Top that is dually equivalent to Lat? Here, Top is the category of topological spaces and continuous maps and Lat is the category of bounded lattices and lattice homomorphisms. To date, the question has been answered positively either by specializing Lat or by generalizing Top. The earliest examples are of the former sort. Tarski [Tar29] (treated in English, e.g., in [BD74]) showed that every complete atomic Boolean lattice is represented by a powerset. Taking some historical license, we can say this result shows that the category of complete atomic Boolean lattices with complete lat- tice homomorphisms is dually equivalent to the category of discrete topological spaces. Birkhoff [Bir37] showed that every finite distributive lattice is represented by the lower sets of a finite partial order. Again, we can now say that this shows that the category of finite distributive lattices is dually equivalent to the category of finite T0 spaces and con- tinuous maps.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributive Envelopes and Topological Duality for Lattices Via Canonical Extensions
    DISTRIBUTIVE ENVELOPES AND TOPOLOGICAL DUALITY FOR LATTICES VIA CANONICAL EXTENSIONS MAI GEHRKE AND SAM VAN GOOL Abstract. We establish a topological duality for bounded lattices. The two main features of our duality are that it generalizes Stone duality for bounded distributive lattices, and that the morphisms on either side are not the stan- dard ones. A positive consequence of the choice of morphisms is that those on the topological side are functional. In the course of the paper, we obtain the following results: (1) canoni- cal extensions of bounded lattices are the algebraic versions of the existing dualities for bounded lattices by Urquhart and Hartung, (2) there is a univer- sal construction which associates to an arbitrary lattice two distributive lattice envelopes with an adjoint pair between them, and (3) we give a topological du- ality for bounded lattices which generalizes Priestley duality and which shows precisely which maps between bounded lattices admit functional duals. For the result in (1), we rely on previous work of Gehrke, J´onssonand Harding. For the universal construction in (2), we modify a construction of the injective hull of a semilattice by Bruns and Lakser, adjusting their concept of `admis- sibility' to the finitary case. For (3), we use Priestley duality for distributive lattices and our universal characterization of the distributive envelopes. 1. Introduction Topological duality for Boolean algebras [22] and distributive lattices [23] is a useful tool for studying relational semantics for propositional logics. Canonical extensions [16, 17, 11, 10] provide a way of looking at these semantics algebraically. In the absence of a satisfactory topological duality, canonical extensions have been used [3] to treat relational semantics for substructural logics.
    [Show full text]
  • Bitopological Duality for Distributive Lattices and Heyting Algebras
    BITOPOLOGICAL DUALITY FOR DISTRIBUTIVE LATTICES AND HEYTING ALGEBRAS GURAM BEZHANISHVILI, NICK BEZHANISHVILI, DAVID GABELAIA, ALEXANDER KURZ Abstract. We introduce pairwise Stone spaces as a natural bitopological generalization of Stone spaces—the duals of Boolean algebras—and show that they are exactly the bitopolog- ical duals of bounded distributive lattices. The category PStone of pairwise Stone spaces is isomorphic to the category Spec of spectral spaces and to the category Pries of Priestley spaces. In fact, the isomorphism of Spec and Pries is most naturally seen through PStone by first establishing that Pries is isomorphic to PStone, and then showing that PStone is isomorphic to Spec. We provide the bitopological and spectral descriptions of many alge- braic concepts important for the study of distributive lattices. We also give new bitopological and spectral dualities for Heyting algebras, co-Heyting algebras, and bi-Heyting algebras, thus providing two new alternatives of Esakia’s duality. 1. Introduction It is widely considered that the beginning of duality theory was Stone’s groundbreaking work in the mid 30ies on the dual equivalence of the category Bool of Boolean algebras and Boolean algebra homomorphism and the category Stone of compact Hausdorff zero- dimensional spaces, which became known as Stone spaces, and continuous functions. In 1937 Stone [28] extended this to the dual equivalence of the category DLat of bounded distributive lattices and bounded lattice homomorphisms and the category Spec of what later became known as spectral spaces and spectral maps. Spectral spaces provide a generalization of Stone 1 spaces. Unlike Stone spaces, spectral spaces are not Hausdorff (not even T1) , and as a result, are more difficult to work with.
    [Show full text]
  • Heyting Duality
    Heyting Duality Vikraman Choudhury April, 2018 1 Heyting Duality Pairs of “equivalent” concepts or phenomena are ubiquitous in mathematics, and dualities relate such two different, even opposing concepts. Stone’s Representa- tion theorem (1936), due to Marshall Stone, states the duality between Boolean algebras and topological spaces. It shows that, for classical propositional logic, the Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra of a set of propositions is isomorphic to the clopen subsets of the set of its valuations, thereby exposing an algebraic viewpoint on logic. In this essay, we consider the case for intuitionistic propositional logic, that is, a duality result for Heyting algebras. It borrows heavily from an exposition of Stone and Heyting duality by van Schijndel and Landsman [2017]. 1.1 Preliminaries Definition (Lattice). A lattice is a poset which admits all finite meets and joins. Categorically, it is a (0, 1) − 푐푎푡푒푔표푟푦 (or a thin category) with all finite limits and finite colimits. Alternatively, a lattice is an algebraic structure in the signature (∧, ∨, 0, 1) that satisfies the following axioms. • ∧ and ∨ are each idempotent, commutative, and associative with respective identities 1 and 0. • the absorption laws, 푥 ∨ (푥 ∧ 푦) = 푥, and 푥 ∧ (푥 ∨ 푦) = 푥. Definition (Distributive lattice). A distributive lattice is a lattice in which ∧and ∨ distribute over each other, that is, the following distributivity axioms are satisfied. Categorically, this makes it a distributive category. 1 • 푥 ∨ (푦 ∧ 푧) = (푥 ∨ 푦) ∧ (푥 ∨ 푧) • 푥 ∧ (푦 ∨ 푧) = (푥 ∧ 푦) ∨ (푥 ∧ 푧) Definition (Complements in a lattice). A complement of an element 푥 of a lattice is an element 푦 such that, 푥 ∧ 푦 = 0 and 푥 ∨ 푦 = 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Bitopological Duality for Distributive Lattices and Heyting Algebras Guram Bezhanishvili New Mexico State University
    Chapman University Chapman University Digital Commons Engineering Faculty Articles and Research Fowler School of Engineering 2010 Bitopological Duality for Distributive Lattices and Heyting Algebras Guram Bezhanishvili New Mexico State University Nick Bezhanishvili University of Leicester David Gabelaia Razmadze Mathematical Institute Alexander Kurz Chapman University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/engineering_articles Part of the Algebra Commons, Logic and Foundations Commons, Other Computer Engineering Commons, Other Computer Sciences Commons, and the Other Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation G. Bezhanishvili, N. Bezhanishvili, D. Gabelaia, and A. Kurz, “Bitopological duality for distributive lattices and Heyting algebras,” Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, vol. 20, no. 03, pp. 359–393, Jun. 2010. DOI: 10.1017/S0960129509990302 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Fowler School of Engineering at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Engineering Faculty Articles and Research by an authorized administrator of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bitopological Duality for Distributive Lattices and Heyting Algebras Comments This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, volume 20, number 3, in 2010 following peer review. The definitive publisher- authenticated
    [Show full text]
  • Lattice Duality: the Origin of Probability and Entropy
    , 1 Lattice Duality: The Origin of Probability and Entropy Kevin H. Knuth NASA Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 269-3, Moffett Field CA 94035-1000, USA Abstract Bayesian probability theory is an inference calculus, which originates from a gen- eralization of inclusion on the Boolean lattice of logical assertions to a degree of inclusion represented by a real number. Dual to this lattice is the distributive lat- tice of questions constructed from the ordered set of down-sets of assertions, which forms the foundation of the calculus of inquiry-a generalization of information theory. In this paper we introduce this novel perspective on these spaces in which machine learning is performed and discuss the relationship between these results and several proposed generalizations of information theory in the literature. Key words: probability, entropy, lattice, information theory, Bayesian inference, inquiry PACS: 1 Introduction It has been known for some time that probability theory can be derived as a generalization of Boolean implication to degrees of implication repre- sented by real numbers [11,12]. Straightforward consistency requirements dic- tate the form of the sum and product rules of probability, and Bayes’ thee rem [11,12,47,46,20,34],which forms the basis of the inferential calculus, also known as inductive inference. However, in machine learning applications it is often times more useful to rely on information theory [45] in the design of an algorithm. On the surface, the connection between information theory and probability theory seems clear-information depends on entropy and entropy Email address: kevin.h. [email protected] (Kevin H.
    [Show full text]
  • Stone Duality Above Dimension Zero: Axiomatising the Algebraic Theory of C(X)
    Advances in Mathematics 307 (2017) 253–287 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Advances in Mathematics www.elsevier.com/locate/aim Stone duality above dimension zero: Axiomatising the algebraic theory of C(X) Vincenzo Marra a,∗, Luca Reggio a,b a Dipartimento di Matematica “Federigo Enriques”, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Cesare Saldini 50, 20133 Milano, Italy b Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, IRIF, Case 7014, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: It has been known since the work of Duskin and Pelletier Received 17 October 2015 four decades ago that Kop, the opposite of the category of Received in revised form 4 October compact Hausdorff spaces and continuous maps, is monadic 2016 over the category of sets. It follows that Kop is equivalent Accepted 14 November 2016 to a possibly infinitary variety of algebras Δ in the sense of Available online xxxx Communicated by Ross Street Słomiński and Linton. Isbell showed in 1982 that the Lawvere– Linton algebraic theory of Δ can be generated using a finite MSC: number of finitary operations, together with a single operation primary 03C05 of countably infinite arity. In 1983, Banaschewski and Rosický secondary 06D35, 06F20, 46E25 independently proved a conjecture of Bankston, establishing a strong negative result on the axiomatisability of Kop. In Keywords: particular, Δ is not a finitary variety – Isbell’s result is best Algebraic theories possible. The problem of axiomatising Δ by equations has Stone duality remained open. Using the theory of Chang’s MV-algebras as Boolean algebras MV-algebras a key tool, along with Isbell’s fundamental insight on the Lattice-ordered Abelian groups semantic nature of the infinitary operation, we provide a finite C∗-algebras axiomatisation of Δ.
    [Show full text]
  • Stone Duality Above Dimension Zero: Axiomatising the Algebraic Theory of C(X)
    Stone duality above dimension zero: Axiomatising the algebraic theory of C(X) Vincenzo Marraa, Luca Reggioa,b aDipartimento di Matematica \Federigo Enriques", Universit`adegli Studi di Milano, via Cesare Saldini 50, 20133 Milano, Italy bUniversit´eParis Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cit´e,IRIF, Case 7014, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France Abstract It has been known since the work of Duskin and Pelletier four decades ago that Kop, the opposite of the category of compact Hausdorff spaces and continuous maps, is monadic over the category of sets. It follows that Kop is equivalent to a possibly infinitary variety of algebras ∆ in the sense of S lomi´nskiand Linton. Isbell showed in 1982 that the Lawvere-Linton algebraic theory of ∆ can be generated using a finite number of finitary operations, together with a single operation of countably infinite arity. In 1983, Banaschewski and Rosick´yindependently proved a conjecture of Bankston, establishing a strong negative result on the axiomatisability of Kop. In particular, ∆ is not a finitary variety | Isbell's result is best possible. The problem of axiomatising ∆ by equations has remained open. Using the theory of Chang's MV-algebras as a key tool, along with Isbell's fundamental insight on the semantic nature of the infinitary operation, we provide a finite axiomatisation of ∆. Key words: Algebraic theories, Stone duality, Boolean algebras, MV-algebras, Lattice-ordered Abelian groups, C∗-algebras, Rings of continuous functions, Compact Hausdorff spaces, Stone-Weierstrass Theorem, Axiomatisability. 2010 MSC: Primary: 03C05. Secondary: 06D35, 06F20, 46E25. 1. Introduction. In the category Set of sets and functions, coordinatise the two-element set as 2 := f0; 1g.
    [Show full text]
  • Choice-Free Stone Duality
    CHOICE-FREE STONE DUALITY NICK BEZHANISHVILI AND WESLEY H. HOLLIDAY Abstract. The standard topological representation of a Boolean algebra via the clopen sets of a Stone space requires a nonconstructive choice principle, equivalent to the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem. In this paper, we describe a choice-free topo- logical representation of Boolean algebras. This representation uses a subclass of the spectral spaces that Stone used in his representation of distributive lattices via compact open sets. It also takes advantage of Tarski's observation that the regular open sets of any topological space form a Boolean algebra. We prove without choice principles that any Boolean algebra arises from a special spectral space X via the compact regular open sets of X; these sets may also be described as those that are both compact open in X and regular open in the upset topology of the specialization order of X, allowing one to apply to an arbitrary Boolean algebra simple reasoning about regular opens of a separative poset. Our representation is therefore a mix of Stone and Tarski, with the two connected by Vietoris: the relevant spectral spaces also arise as the hyperspace of nonempty closed sets of a Stone space endowed with the upper Vietoris topology. This connection makes clear the relation between our point-set topological approach to choice-free Stone duality, which may be called the hyperspace approach, and a point-free approach to choice-free Stone duality using Stone locales. Unlike Stone's representation of Boolean algebras via Stone spaces, our choice-free topological representation of Boolean algebras does not show that every Boolean algebra can be represented as a field of sets; but like Stone's repre- sentation, it provides the benefit of a topological perspective on Boolean algebras, only now without choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1408.1072V1 [Math.CT]
    SOME NOTES ON ESAKIA SPACES DIRK HOFMANN AND PEDRO NORA Dedicated to Manuela Sobral Abstract. Under Stone/Priestley duality for distributive lattices, Esakia spaces correspond to Heyting algebras which leads to the well-known dual equivalence between the category of Esakia spaces and morphisms on one side and the category of Heyting algebras and Heyting morphisms on the other. Based on the technique of idempotent split completion, we give a simple proof of a more general result involving certain relations rather then functions as morphisms. We also extend the notion of Esakia space to all stably locally compact spaces and show that these spaces define the idempotent split completion of compact Hausdorff spaces. Finally, we exhibit connections with split algebras for related monads. Introduction These notes evolve around the observation that Esakia duality for Heyting algebras arises more naturally when considering the larger category SpecDist with objects spectral spaces and with morphisms spectral distributors. In fact, as we observed already in [Hofmann, 2014], in this category Esakia spaces define the idempotent split completion of Stone spaces. Furthermore, it is well-known that SpecDist is dually equivalent to the category DLat⊥,∨ of distributive lattices and maps preserving finite suprema and that, under this equivalence, Stone spaces correspond to Boolean algebras. This tells us that the category of Esakia spaces and spectral distributors is dually equivalent to the idempotent split completion of the category Boole⊥,∨ of Boolean algebras and maps preserving finite suprema. However, the main ingredients to identify this category as the full subcategory of DLat⊥,∨ defined by all co-Heyting algebras were already provided by McKinsey and Tarski in 1946.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dynamics of Duality: a Fresh Look at the Philosophy of Duality
    数理解析研究所講究録 77 第2050巻 2017年 77-99 The Dynamics of Duality: A Fresh Look at the Philosophy of Duality Yoshihiro Maruyama The Hakubi Centre and Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University Mathematical, Physical, and Life Sciences Division, University of Oxford [\mathrm{T}]\mathrm{h}\mathrm{e} development of philosophy since the Renaissance has by and large gone from right to left Particularly in physics, this development has reached a peak in our own time, in that, to a large extent, the possibility of knowledge of the objectivisable states of affairs is denied, and it is asserted that we must be content to predict results of observations. This is really the end of all theo‐ retical science in the usual sense (Kurt Gödel, The modern development of the foundations of mathematics in the light of philosophy, lecture never delivered)1 1 Unity, Disunity, and Pluralistic Unity Since the modernist killing of natural philosophy seeking a universal conception of the cosmos as a united whole, our system of knowledge has been optimised for the sake of each particular domain, and has accordingly been massively fragmented and disenchanted (in terms of Webers theory of modernity). Today we lack a unified view of the world, living in the age of disunity surrounded by myriads of uncertainties and contingencies, which invade both science and society as exemplified by different sciences of chance, including quantum theory and artificial intelligence on the basis of statistical machine learning, and by the distinctively after‐modern features of risk society (in terms of the theories of late/reflexive/liquid modermity), respectively (this is not necessarily negative like quite some people respect diversity more than uniformity; contemporary art, for example, gets a lot of inspirations from uncertainties and contingencies out there in nature and society).
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifiers and Duality Luca Reggio
    Quantifiers and duality Luca Reggio To cite this version: Luca Reggio. Quantifiers and duality. Logic in Computer Science [cs.LO]. Université Sorbonne Paris Cité, 2018. English. NNT : 2018USPCC210. tel-02459132 HAL Id: tel-02459132 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02459132 Submitted on 29 Jan 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THÈSE DE DOCTORAT DE L’UNIVERSITÉ SORBONNE PARIS CITÉ PRÉPARÉE À L’UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DIDEROT ÉCOLE DOCTORALE DES SCIENCES MATHÉMATIQUES DE PARIS CENTRE ED 386 Quantifiers and duality Par: Dirigée par: Luca REGGIO Mai GEHRKE Thèse de doctorat de Mathématiques Présentée et soutenue publiquement à Paris le 10 septembre 2018 Président du jury: Samson ABRAMSKY, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Oxford Rapporteurs: Mamuka JIBLADZE, Razmadze Mathematical Inst., Tbilisi State University Achim JUNG, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham Directrice de thése: Mai GEHRKE, Lab. J. A. Dieudonné, CNRS et Université Côte d’Azur Co-encadrants de thése: Samuel J. VAN GOOL, ILLC, University of Amsterdam Daniela PETRI ¸SAN, IRIF, Université Paris Diderot Membres invités: Clemens BERGER, Lab. J. A. Dieudonné, Université Côte d’Azur Paul-André MELLIÈS, IRIF, CNRS et Université Paris Diderot ii Titre: Quantificateurs et dualité Résumé: Le thème central de la présente thèse est le contenu sémantique des quantificateurs logiques.
    [Show full text]