Timeline for Lawvere theories versus classical universal algebra
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2012 at 14:28 | answer | added | Akhil Mathew | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 8, 2012 at 14:22 | answer | added | Niemi | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 30, 2011 at 21:17 | vote | accept | Benjamin Steinberg | ||
| Jun 30, 2011 at 21:13 | vote | accept | Benjamin Steinberg | ||
| Jun 30, 2011 at 21:17 | |||||
| Jun 30, 2011 at 19:40 | vote | accept | Benjamin Steinberg | ||
| Jun 30, 2011 at 19:40 | |||||
| Jun 29, 2011 at 14:45 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Martin: it's law-VEER. I can't remember what he told me about the origin of the name, but I think it might have been Flemish or something. He himself grew up on a farm in Indiana (USA). | |
| Jun 29, 2011 at 11:59 | comment | added | Benjamin Steinberg | I am not 100% one cannot define models of a classical universal algebra in categories other than sets. People like Banachewski (sp?) long considered topological universal algebras. I think for a variety of universal algebras, it is not hard to define a model in another category diagramatically, like the way group objects are defined. I.e., a map from the direct power of m copies of the object to itself for each m-ary operations such that appropriate diagrams commute. Of course this looks just like a functor from the opposite of the category of finitely generated free objects... | |
| Jun 29, 2011 at 9:32 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | Sorry for this offtopic-question, but I always wondered how Lawvere is pronounced correctly. Can someone explain this to me? | |
| Jun 29, 2011 at 6:54 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | From where I stand, you might as well ask what are the disadvantages of a hammer over a drill. In my not so humble opinion, a better question would be where are Lawvere theories more applicable than the equational theories of classes of algebraic structures. Part of the problem I am having is that (for me) "classical universal algebra" is not just about equational classes of models and their (deductively closed) theories. See also my request below to Todd Trimble. Gerhard "Species Gap, Not Generation Gap" Paseman, 2011.06.28 | |
| Jun 29, 2011 at 6:24 | answer | added | Todd Trimble | timeline score: 32 | |
| Jun 29, 2011 at 3:24 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Well, the obvious advantage that comes to mind is that you can consider models in categories other than Set. | |
| Jun 29, 2011 at 2:56 | history | asked | Benjamin Steinberg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |