Computer theorem proving in math

We give an overview of issues surrounding computer-verified theorem proving in the standard pure-mathematical context. This is based on my talk at the PQR conference (Brussels, June 2003)

Ethnicity

As developed in the fields of anthropology and sociology, the concept of ethnicity offers one possible approach to analyzing diversity in the population of ancient Egypt. However, it is important that ethnicity not be elided with foreign-ness, as has often been the case in Egyptological literature. Ethnicity is a social construct based on self-image, and thus may be difficult to identify in the ancient sources, where a monolithic uniformity of “Egyptian” versus “other” prevails. A range of sources does suggest that ethnic difference operated within the indigenous population throughout Egyptian history, as would be expected in any complex society. This discussion explores these sources and suggests ways of thinking about the negotiation of ethnic identity in ancient Egypt

Sets in homotopy type theory

Homotopy Type Theory may be seen as an internal language for the $\infty$-category of weak $\infty$-groupoids which in particular models the univalence axiom. Voevodsky proposes this language for weak $\infty$-groupoids as a new foundation for mathematics called the Univalent Foundations of Mathematics. It includes the sets as weak $\infty$-groupoids with contractible connected components, and thereby it includes (much of) the traditional set theoretical foundations as a special case. We thus wonder whether those `discrete' groupoids do in fact form a (predicative) topos. More generally, homotopy type theory is conjectured to be the internal language of `elementary' $\infty$-toposes. We prove that sets in homotopy type theory form a $\Pi W$-pretopos. This is similar to the fact that the $0$-truncation of an $\infty$-topos is a topos. We show that both a subobject classifier and a $0$-object classifier are available for the type theoretical universe of sets. However, both of these are large and moreover, the $0$-object classifier for sets is a function between $1$-types (i.e. groupoids) rather than between sets. Assuming an impredicative propositional resizing rule we may render the subobject classifier small and then we actually obtain a topos of sets

Mass problems and intuitionistic higher-order logic

In this paper we study a model of intuitionistic higher-order logic which we call \emph{the Muchnik topos}. The Muchnik topos may be defined briefly as the category of sheaves of sets over the topological space consisting of the Turing degrees, where the Turing cones form a base for the topology. We note that our Muchnik topos interpretation of intuitionistic mathematics is an extension of the well known Kolmogorov/Muchnik interpretation of intuitionistic propositional calculus via Muchnik degrees, i.e., mass problems under weak reducibility. We introduce a new sheaf representation of the intuitionistic real numbers, \emph{the Muchnik reals}, which are different from the Cauchy reals and the Dedekind reals. Within the Muchnik topos we obtain a \emph{choice principle} $(\forall x\,\exists y\,A(x,y))\Rightarrow\exists w\,\forall x\,A(x,wx)$ and a \emph{bounding principle} $(\forall x\,\exists y\,A(x,y))\Rightarrow\exists z\,\forall x\,\exists y\,(y\le_{\mathrm{T}}(x,z)\land A(x,y))$ where $x,y,z$ range over Muchnik reals, $w$ ranges over functions from Muchnik reals to Muchnik reals, and $A(x,y)$ is a formula not containing $w$ or $z$. For the convenience of the reader, we explain all of the essential background material on intuitionism, sheaf theory, intuitionistic higher-order logic, Turing degrees, mass problems, Muchnik degrees, and Kolmogorov's calculus of problems. We also provide an English translation of Muchnik's 1963 paper on Muchnik degrees.Comment: 44 page

A topos for algebraic quantum theory

The aim of this paper is to relate algebraic quantum mechanics to topos theory, so as to construct new foundations for quantum logic and quantum spaces. Motivated by Bohr's idea that the empirical content of quantum physics is accessible only through classical physics, we show how a C*-algebra of observables A induces a topos T(A) in which the amalgamation of all of its commutative subalgebras comprises a single commutative C*-algebra. According to the constructive Gelfand duality theorem of Banaschewski and Mulvey, the latter has an internal spectrum S(A) in T(A), which in our approach plays the role of a quantum phase space of the system. Thus we associate a locale (which is the topos-theoretical notion of a space and which intrinsically carries the intuitionistic logical structure of a Heyting algebra) to a C*-algebra (which is the noncommutative notion of a space). In this setting, states on A become probability measures (more precisely, valuations) on S(A), and self-adjoint elements of A define continuous functions (more precisely, locale maps) from S(A) to Scott's interval domain. Noting that open subsets of S(A) correspond to propositions about the system, the pairing map that assigns a (generalized) truth value to a state and a proposition assumes an extremely simple categorical form. Formulated in this way, the quantum theory defined by A is essentially turned into a classical theory, internal to the topos T(A).Comment: 52 pages, final version, to appear in Communications in Mathematical Physic

First Steps in Synthetic Computability Theory

AbstractComputability theory, which investigates computable functions and computable sets, lies at the foundation of computer science. Its classical presentations usually involve a fair amount of Gödel encodings which sometime obscure ingenious arguments. Consequently, there have been a number of presentations of computability theory that aimed to present the subject in an abstract and conceptually pleasing way. We build on two such approaches, Hyland's effective topos and Richman's formulation in Bishop-style constructive mathematics, and develop basic computability theory, starting from a few simple axioms. Because we want a theory that resembles ordinary mathematics as much as possible, we never speak of Turing machines and Gödel encodings, but rather use familiar concepts from set theory and topology