Category theory vs. ZF language in a physics paper

Category theory vs. ZF language in a physics paper

[Vasili I. Galchin]

Hi CatTheory people,

          I think that http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646v2.pdf should be
rewritten using category/topos theoretical language. E.g. instead of
alluding to an infinite number of group presentations use Lawvere
functional semantics ala categorical logic. Yes??

Vasya


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]

Re: Category theory vs. ZF language in a physics paper

[Vaughan Pratt]

Perhaps Tegmark and Voevodsky should have lunch the next time they're
both at the same place.  Not too hard to get between MIT and Princeton.

Interested parties might want to first read through the 155 comments (9
by Tegmark himself) at

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2014/02/rationally-speaking-podcast-max-tegmark.html

before commenting here.  Stand-on-their-shoulders-instead-of-their-toes
sort of thing.

Chemistry predates atomic physics.  If a new subject emerges in the
future that atomic physics predates in the same way, the Mathematical
Universe Hypothesis would cease to be a concern of physics (as we know
it) just as it presumably is not a concern of chemistry today.

Vaughan

On 5/15/2014 11:32 PM, Vasili I. Galchin wrote:
> Hi CatTheory people,
>
>            I think that http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646v2.pdf should be
> rewritten using category/topos theoretical language. E.g. instead of
> alluding to an infinite number of group presentations use Lawvere
> functional semantics ala categorical logic. Yes??
>
> Vasya

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]