From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4330
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Prof. Peter Johnstone"
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories
Subject: Re: The internal logic of a topos
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:40:32 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019875 12790 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:44:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:44:35 +0000 (UTC)
To: Categories mailing list
Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Mon Mar 17 18:15:34 2008 -0300
Return-path:
Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca
Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:15:34 -0300
Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61)
(envelope-from )
id 1JbMc6-0005XX-97
for categories-list@mta.ca; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:11:22 -0300
Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 94
Original-Lines: 41
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:4330
Archived-At:
Dear Vaughan,
I don't think one can give a straight answer to this question: it all
depends on what you mean by `the logic of a topos'. I presume you're
thinking of the fact that, in Set, any function 2^n --> 2 is a polynomial
in the Boolean operations (i.e., is the interpretation of some n-ary term
in the theory of Boolean algebras). One could ask the same question about
a general topos, with `Heyting' replacing `Boolean'; but the answer
would mostly be `no', even for Boolean toposes. On the other hand, one
might well *define* `the internal logic of a topos' as meaning the
collection of all natural operations on subobjects -- that is, the
collection of all morphisms \Omega^n --> \Omega.
Incidentally, there is nothing unnatural or counterintuitive about `the
notion of internal Heyting algebra: it is a very natural consequence of
the definition of a subobject classifier, see A1.6.3 in the Elephant.
Peter
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Vaughan Pratt wrote:
> As I understand the internal logic of a topos it consists of certain
> morphisms from finite powers of Omega to Omega. In the case of Set it
> consists of all such morphisms. For which toposes is this not the case,
> and for those how are the morphisms that do belong to the internal logic
> best characterized?
>
> I do hope it's not necessary to start from the notion of an internal
> Heyting algebra, that sounds so counter to mathematical practice and
> intuition.
>
> If the internal logic consists of precisely those morphisms preserved by
> geometric morphisms this will give me the necessary motivation to go to
> the mats with geometry.
>
> Vaughan
>
>
>