3
$\begingroup$

I am curious about instances where we can glean nontrivial information about a certain piece of the universe by viewing it as being 'built over' a smaller part of the universe, or alternatively viewing it as a subspace of a larger piece of the universe.

For 'top down' examples we can view any ordered field as a subfield of the Surreals, or any Archimedean ordered field as a subfield of the Reals, or any linearly ordered group as an ordered additive subgroup of $\mathbb{R}^\Gamma$ for $\Gamma$ the collection of Archimedean equivalence classes of the group.

For 'bottom up' examples we can view all abelian groups as $\mathbb{Z}$-modules, or any ordered field as an extension of $\mathbb{Q}$ -- category theory also probably has some nice examples, but it is not my forte.

What are other cool/useful examples of this occurring?

EDIT: In light of the 'uncear' close vote, I will attempt to be more specific.

Suppose we have a class $X$ with some binary operations $\{\odot_i\}_{i<n}\subseteq {}^{X^2}X$ and a collection of subsets $\{U_i\}_{i<\lambda}\subseteq\mathcal{P}(X)$. This may be, for example, a topological group or a valued module.

A-priori we do not necessarily know anything about the structure $S=(X,\{\odot_i\}_{i<n},\{U_i\}_{i<\lambda})$ until we begin writing down some conjectures $\{\phi_i\}_{i<m}$ and seeing if $S\vDash\phi_i$. For nontrivial $\phi_i$, one way to go about this is to begin proving simple or obvious sentences about $S$ and seeing if $\phi_i$ or $\neg\phi_i$ is a consequence of any combination of these simple sentences. If it isn't, we can gradually proceed to prove more and more complex sentences true until we reach a sufficient depth to begin tackling $\phi_i$. A great example here is number theory.

One alternative is to identify $S$ as a substructure of some structure $S'$ that we're very familiar with, then begin using well-known facts about $S'$ and its substructures to tackle $\phi_i$. This is what is meant by a 'top down' approach.

Another alternative route is to identify $S$ as containing a copy of another structure $S''$ we are very familiar with, then view $S$ as an extension of $S''$ in an appropriate sense to begin approaching $\phi_i$ from well known or deep facts abut $S''$. This is what is meant by a 'bottoms up' approach.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I would like to make this CW, but can't seem to find the button. $\endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Mar 28, 2018 at 4:41
  • $\begingroup$ Only site moderators can convert a question to CW, which I have done. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Mar 28, 2018 at 11:53
  • $\begingroup$ @ToddTrimble Much appreciated. $\endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Mar 28, 2018 at 12:02

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

This is not what you are looking for, but I can't help myself.

Say the universe is a (closed) manifold $M$. One way of studying the manifold "from the bottom up" is by looking at the sublevel sets of a function $f:M\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, i.e. by studying the topology of the sets

$$ M_c=\{x\in M\,|\, f(x)\leq c\}. $$

Looking at $M$ from the top down would be by looking at superlevel sets

$$ M^c=\{x\in M\,|\, f(x)\geq c\}. $$

But these things contain the same information: A sublevel set for $f$ is a superlevel set of $-f$. This observation leads to Poincaré duality.

Maybe more in spirit: Any $n$ dimenional manifold is made up from copies of $\mathbb{R}^n$, but is also a submanifold of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a very specific instance of what I am looking for, thank you. Your last comment is more along the lines of the 'pieces of the universe' vein, in this case the piece being all finite dimensional manifolds. $\endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Mar 28, 2018 at 11:16
3
$\begingroup$

This is a central idea in many large cardinal axioms, which postulate the existence of a nontrivial elementary embedding of the set-theoretic universe $V$ into a transitive class $M$. $$j:V\to M$$ This situation conforms with your description because we may view the relationship between the universe $V$ and the class $M$ in two ways:

  • The universe $V$ is smaller than $M$ because it is isomorphic to its image $j"V$, which is a subclass of $M$.
  • The universe $V$ is larger than $M$ because $M\subset V$ is a transitive class in $V$.

Many arguments in large cardinal set theory involve at their essence the interaction of these two perspectives.

When there is such an embedding, then any sufficiently large mathematical structure $X$ admits the same two perspectives, comparing $X$ with $j(X)$. On the one hand, we can understand $X$ by understanding its version $j(X)$ in the other universe $M$, with the the isomorphic copy $j"X$ sitting inside $j(X)$. So we essentially have two versions of $X$, a smaller one $j"X$ and a larger one $j(X)$, each of them analogous to $X$ in slightly different ways, and we can view either one as the genuine $X$ in order to play off on your two perspectives, looking at $j"X$ from $j(X)$ or looking at $j(X)$ from $j"X$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is amazing — simultaneous application of both perspectives is exactly what I was hoping would yield fruitful examples, but to view one object as the larger and smaller structure in question blows me away. $\endgroup$
    – Alec Rhea
    Mar 28, 2018 at 19:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.