From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/5846 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Vaughan Pratt Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: terminology Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:04:32 -0700 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Vaughan Pratt NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1274809725 6181 80.91.229.12 (25 May 2010 17:48:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:48:45 +0000 (UTC) To: categories list Original-X-From: categories@mta.ca Tue May 25 19:48:43 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mailserv.mta.ca ([138.73.1.1]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGyF9-0007i1-DS for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 19:48:43 +0200 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1OGxyx-0003OJ-KP for categories-list@mta.ca; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:31:59 -0300 In-Reply-To: Original-Sender: categories@mta.ca Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:5846 Archived-At: On 5/23/2010 8:39 AM, Colin McLarty wrote: > It is an interesting impulse in higher category theory to avoid > identity in favor of isomorphism on the level of objects, and to avoid > isomorphism in favor of equivalence on the level of categories. But > so far as I know no one has yet articulated a way to avoid ever using > identity of objects and identity of categories. Is identity even definable? I thought it was a kind of received wisdom, like the natural numbers. All of us seem to be working with the same notions of = and N, but what are they, exactly? That was only intended as a rhetorical question, btw. We can readily agree on some properties of = and N, which logicians of various stripes have gone to the trouble of spelling out, and which number theorists both analytic and algebraic have expanded on. Moreover most of us would agree that the proposition "the prime factors of M = 7^7^7^7 + 5^5^5^5 + 1 (7#4 + 5#4 + 1 where m#n denotes an exponential stack of n m's) are all greater than 2 billion and there are more than a thousand distinct such" not only makes perfect sense but is either true or false. However fewer might be willing to join me in insisting that it is certainly true. Those who question excluded middle for this proposition may have received different wisdom about N than the rest of us, though if I'm right then there's a constructive proof of the proposition that can be checked on any laptop in under an hour, which should then oblige the intuitionistic objectors to stand down. (No, I don't currently know a single prime factor of M and I don't believe anyone else does either. I do however know the least prime factors of both M + 1 and M + 958; leaving the former as an exercise, the latter is 1,985,781,901. M in decimal is 1755522...1375469 where the number of omitted digits when itself written in decimal has 695,975 digits, so although M in binary wouldn't fit in the universe let alone a laptop's random-access memory its length in binary would easily fit in the latter. The requisite calculations for all these observations take only minutes on an ordinary laptop.) Without exponentiation in the language, M would not be known to us: with only the polynomial operations the requisite expression 7*7*...*7 + 5*5*...*5 + 1 would stretch beyond the farthest known galaxies. This question about M, which is a question about N, could therefore not have arisen. With it, the question becomes part of our understanding, or lack thereof, of N. The same can be said of identity. The richer the language, the more tools we have to probe our understanding of identity, and the clearer our lack of complete understanding of it becomes. Vaughan Pratt [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]