From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/2149
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Prof. Peter Johnstone"
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories
Subject: Re: Cauchy completeness of Cauchy reals
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:06:02 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID:
References: <200302040047.QAA03714@coraki.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241018449 2733 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:20:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:20:49 +0000 (UTC)
To: CATEGORIES LIST
Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Wed Feb 5 15:35:06 2003 -0400
Return-path:
Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca
Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 15:35:06 -0400
Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.10)
id 18gVI7-0007O9-00
for categories-list@mta.ca; Wed, 05 Feb 2003 15:33:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <200302040047.QAA03714@coraki.Stanford.EDU>
X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *18gS3m-00001q-00*TL.8jifFciY*
Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 4
Original-Lines: 46
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:2149
Archived-At:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Vaughan Pratt wrote:
>
> While I'm comfortable with coalgebraic presentations of the continuum, as
> well as such algebraic presentations as the field P/I (P being a ring of
> certain polynomials, I the ideal of P generated by 1-2x) that I mentioned
> a week or so ago, I'm afraid I'm no judge of constructive approaches to
> formulating Dedekind cuts. Would a toposopher (or a constructivist of
> any other stripe) view the following variants as all more or less equally
> constructive, for example?
>
> 1. Define a (closed) interval in the reals as a disjoint pair (L,R)
> consisting of an order ideal L and an order filter R, both in the rationals
> standardly ordered, both lacking endpoints. Order intervals by pairwise
> inclusion: (L,R) <= (L',R') when L is a subset of L' and R is a subset of R'.
> Define the reals to be the maximal elements in this order. Define an
> irrational to be a real for which (L,R) partitions Q.
>
> 2. Ditto but with the reals defined instead to be intervals for which
> Q - (L U R) is a finite set. ("Finite set" rather than just "finite" to
> avoid the other meaning of "finite interval." The order plays no role
> in this definition, maximality of reals in the order being instead a
> theorem.)
>
> 3. As for 2 but with "finite" replaced by "cardinality at most 1".
> The predicate "rational" is identified with the cardinality of Q - (L U R).
>
No constructivist (of whatever stripe) would be happy talking about
Q - (L U R), as in your second and third definitions, since he wouldn't
want to assume that L and R were complemented as subsets of Q.
Your first definition, if I understand it correctly, is equivalent to
what most toposophers would call the MacNeille reals -- that is, the
(Dedekind-MacNeille) order-completion of Q. If you "positivize" the
second and third (which would appear to be equivalent, for any sensible
notion of finiteness) by saying "Whenever p and q are rationals with
p < q, then either p \in L or q \in R", you get the Dedekind reals,
which are a proper subset of the MacNeille reals (though they
coincide iff De Morgan's law holds) but have rather better algebraic
properties.
Peter Johnstone