Timeline for A better way to explain forcing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 7, 2023 at 18:12 | answer | added | new account | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 26, 2020 at 7:45 | comment | added | Vincent | I just wanted to say I already really like the beginners guide you wrote! Please let us know if there will be an improved version | |
| Aug 26, 2020 at 1:18 | answer | added | Mike Shulman | timeline score: 39 | |
| Aug 22, 2020 at 22:52 | comment | added | Pedro Sánchez Terraf | On variations of exposition: Did you check this paper by Moore? Perhaps it might have some extra ingredient for your recipe. | |
| Aug 22, 2020 at 17:47 | comment | added | Daniel Schepler | I asked a similar question in math.stackexchange.com/questions/3576510/… | |
| Aug 22, 2020 at 8:57 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | @AsafKaragila: The topos of sheaves on a site "is" the category of sets in the forcing model of IZF (so this is Heyting-valued rather than Boolean-valued forcing) obtained by adjoining a generic flat cover-preserving presheaf on that site. (It's not exactly that because of the opposites of David's (a) and (b).) | |
| Aug 22, 2020 at 0:27 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | I have wondered whether Mac Lane and Moerdijk's book Sheaves in Geometry and Logic has ever helped someone with a background in logic and set theory understand modern geometry. It seemed to be written for people going in the other direction. | |
| Aug 21, 2020 at 23:46 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @Asaf maybe :-) That would be a good MO question, I think... | |
| Aug 21, 2020 at 23:45 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @TimothyChow yes, that's pretty much the gist of it. But I can imagine given Aaronson's area of expertise sheaves are not exactly the thing that would make it make more sense for him. I must say I appreciated the early version of your writeup when I was trying to grasp the idea of forcing. | |
| Aug 21, 2020 at 15:34 | vote | accept | Timothy Chow | ||
| Aug 21, 2020 at 14:33 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @DavidRoberts : For such a person, I think the Boolean-valued model approach that I actually took in my paper should be reasonably palatable. Scott Aaronson (among others) found that approach off-putting, so I am trying to find a path that doesn't appeal to multi-valued models. | |
| Aug 21, 2020 at 10:18 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | @David: Does that mean that someone can explain sheaves to me in a way that I can understand, just because I understand forcing? :-) | |
| Aug 21, 2020 at 9:45 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Here's a slightly tongue in cheek answer: if the mathematician knows about sheaves, say you are taking some certain sheaves over a site whose objects are the forcing conditions, and then the complicated stuff in forcing comes from a) passing to a two-valued model by a giant quotienting operation and then b) simulating sets as well-founded trees in the result. From the point of view of the forcing relation, you don't do a) and b) but implicitly work with the sheaves, possibly passing to "dense open subsets" in the site (to abuse some language) to show things hold. | |
| Aug 21, 2020 at 7:57 | answer | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | timeline score: 20 | |
| Aug 21, 2020 at 5:43 | answer | added | Gabe Goldberg | timeline score: 22 | |
| Aug 21, 2020 at 2:43 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Aug 20, 2020 at 21:44 | answer | added | Mirco A. Mannucci | timeline score: 35 | |
| Aug 20, 2020 at 19:57 | answer | added | Rodrigo Freire | timeline score: 35 | |
| Aug 20, 2020 at 18:43 | history | asked | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |