MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Kripke semantics interpret intuitionistic logic by a partially ordered set of worlds/situations. Consistent histories interpretation of QM elaborates the copenhagen interpretation where a consistent set of histories can be assigned probabilities.

I don't really understand either of these formalisms, but it does appear on the face of it that the formalisms should have something in common, do they?

share|cite|improve this question
2  
Check out the topos approaches to quantum mechanics, as initiated by Isham/Butterfield and Döring/Isham (the contravariant approach, see review by Flori: arxiv.org/abs/1106.5660). There's also a covariant approach, developed by Heunen, Landsman and Spitters (see Wolters' comparison of the approaches: arxiv.org/abs/1010.2031). That should get you started. – Ulrik Buchholtz Sep 22 '12 at 16:52
1  
Isham addresses the topic specifically in 'Topos Theory and Consistent Histories' arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9607069. – David Corfield Sep 23 '12 at 14:34
    
great, thanks for both these references. – Mozibur Ullah Sep 23 '12 at 17:11

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.