[HN Gopher] An introduction to topos theory (2011) [pdf]
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       An introduction to topos theory (2011) [pdf]
        
       Author : poetically
       Score  : 50 points
       Date   : 2021-11-28 07:17 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.fuw.edu.pl)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.fuw.edu.pl)
        
       | CliffStoll wrote:
       | A bit more approachable for this tired astronomer:
       | 
       | Topos Theory in a Nutxhell by John Baez:
       | https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/topos.html
        
         | practal wrote:
         | If you like to read about foundations, maybe you will like this
         | as well: https://obua.com/publications/philosophy-of-
         | abstraction-logi...
        
       | klodolph wrote:
       | Oh, neat! I knew that topoi were an alternative mathematical
       | foundation, but this is the first time I've seen it explained in
       | a way that I could understand. I've tried attacking the
       | explanations on Wikipedia but my head just started spinning
       | around each time I did it.
       | 
       | I made it to page 8 here before I got a bit bogged down and would
       | need to take a pad of paper out to keep following. I do enjoy
       | this dense yet accessible style of mathematics text, it reminds
       | my of the notes I would get from the most seasoned professors in
       | the mathematics department... you know, the ones that have been
       | around forever and care about teaching.
        
       | agluszak wrote:
       | I'm so proud to see my uni (University of Warsaw) on the HN front
       | page :D
        
       | Syzygies wrote:
       | Proof assistants such as Lean are inching their way into the
       | mainstream. Ideas from topos theory, higher category theory, and
       | homotopy theory are all running together:
       | 
       | https://homotopytypetheory.org/book/
       | 
       | I'd argue that any new programming language should be designed
       | with an awareness of the languages of formal proof. Otherwise one
       | is barking up the wrong tree.
       | 
       | Samuel Eilenberg, perhaps the most influential mathematician to
       | pass through Columbia's math department doors, was in his later
       | years a pioneer of topos theory. Colleagues viewed this with
       | respect and puzzlement; no one else had much of a clue what topos
       | theory even was.
       | 
       | As a kid, I saw a photo of Eilenberg "working", deep in afternoon
       | thought while reclining in his apartment, in a Time/Life book on
       | mathematics. I thought, "What a great job!" Years later, he
       | called to hire me. Early on the job, I was out drinking with
       | friends after midnight, way downtown, when a fellow postdoc
       | spotted Sammy at the bar. "What if he sees us!?" Huh, he's here
       | too. We moved across the street to a quieter bar, then I saw him
       | looking for a cab, and invited him to join the four of us. We
       | were out together past dawn, and he beat me into the department
       | that day, as chair. He was seventy.
        
         | spekcular wrote:
         | Wait, what?
         | 
         | Lean doesn't used any ideas from "topos theory, higher category
         | theory, and homotopy theory." It uses pretty vanilla type
         | theory. The HoTT people sometimes express annoyance at the
         | "impurity" of their approach, in fact.
         | 
         | Also, it's not so clear that Eilenberg is "most influential
         | mathematician to pass through Columbia's math department doors"
         | when people like Okounkov are there. I don't necessarily
         | disagree, but it's a highly contestable claim.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | bionhoward wrote:
           | It's a good claim. Topos theory is a statement about type
           | systems, right?
        
           | Syzygies wrote:
           | Lean is getting the most math buzz of late. The HoTT people
           | instead use Coq, which has to be adapted to their purpose.
           | The differences could be its own thread. I love how you allow
           | that dependent types are now "vanilla"; perhaps more people
           | will migrate from Haskell to Idris.
           | 
           | The HoTT book is the trippiest read.
           | 
           | I said "perhaps", and what's an opinion worth if it's not
           | obviously an opinion? Eilenberg has category theory and
           | homological algebra to his credit, those are entire subjects
           | that have shaped the last seventy years of mathematics. I'm
           | happy to throw him into the debate.
        
             | zozbot234 wrote:
             | AIUI, it _is_ possible to do HoTT in Lean 3 with no
             | modifications to Lean itself, albeit by  "disabling"
             | singleton elimination from Prop to Type. (An example
             | library is at https://github.com/gebner/hott3 .) No idea
             | about the newer Lean 4, but the documentation does not
             | mention any changes to the underlying logic that would
             | affect that.
        
       | auggierose wrote:
       | That's incomplete, at least 8.4 and 8.5 are missing. Given that
       | is from 2011, it will probably not be updated...
        
         | echopurity wrote:
         | HN just upvotes category theory to feel smart.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-12-01 23:03 UTC)