Timeline for Intuitionistic logic as quantization of classical logic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Dec 15, 2014 at 19:37 | history | suggested | Incnis Mrsi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
do not deem [tag:ct.category-theory] very relevant; minor fixes
|
| Dec 15, 2014 at 19:20 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 15, 2014 at 19:37 | |||||
| May 15, 2013 at 2:24 | answer | added | mitch smith | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 25, 2013 at 17:04 | comment | added | Urs Schreiber | An survey of and introduction to the Heunen-Landsman-Spitters (and others') idea of "Bohr toposes" is here: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Bohr+topos . That's indeed a good point to mention. | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 18:04 | answer | added | Urs Schreiber | timeline score: 26 | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 14:57 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz |
tag
|
|
| Apr 23, 2013 at 21:46 | answer | added | Dan Piponi | timeline score: 8 | |
| Apr 23, 2013 at 20:41 | comment | added | Jan Jitse Venselaar | @Paul: There is an approach by Heunen, Landsman and Spitters (arxiv.org/abs/0709.4364) where they combine quantum mechanics, noncommutative geometry, and toposes, where one of the main point of toposes is that the internal logic is intuitionistic. I'm not well-versed enough in topos theory to really make sense of that article though. | |
| Apr 23, 2013 at 18:58 | comment | added | Paul Taylor | That piece of prose is in the Introduction to the book, which I wrote in a hurry because there had to be an Introduction, so don't pay much attention to it. If there is ever a second edition then the Introduction will go: I am still quite pleased with the way I started off in Section 1.1. | |
| Apr 23, 2013 at 16:38 | answer | added | ex0du5 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 23, 2013 at 15:55 | comment | added | Joël | +1 for the link to this fascinating article. | |
| Apr 23, 2013 at 15:53 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz |
added phil tag
|
|
| Apr 23, 2013 at 15:38 | history | edited | François G. Dorais |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 23, 2013 at 15:25 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | I note that in your "Practical Foundations" you use a similar analogy: "In classical logic, as in classical physics, particles enact a logical script, but neither they nor the stage on which they perform are permanently altered by the experience. In the modern view, matter and its activity are created together, and are interchangeable (the observer also affects the experiment by the strength of the meta-logic)." | |
| Apr 23, 2013 at 15:21 | comment | added | Paul Taylor | I suspect that the thinking behind this question is that it is sometimes said that classical mathematicians ought to be willing to acknowledge intuitionistic mathematics in the same way that they do non-commutative group or ring theory. I agree with this professionally, but I do not think that there is a significant mathematical analogy to be made. Howover, I would certainly like to hear from someone who does know about quantum groups, for example, maybe with a substantive positive answer to this question. | |
| Apr 23, 2013 at 14:37 | answer | added | Margaret Friedland | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 23, 2013 at 14:02 | answer | added | Paul Taylor | timeline score: 17 | |
| Apr 23, 2013 at 13:12 | history | asked | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |