[過去ﾛｸﾞ] 現代数学の系譜 工学物理雑談 古典ガロア理論も読む79 (1002ﾚｽ)
上下前次1-新
抽出解除 ﾚｽ栞
このｽﾚｯﾄﾞは過去ﾛｸﾞ倉庫に格納されています｡
次ｽﾚ検索 歴削→次ｽﾚ 栞削→次ｽﾚ 過去ﾛｸﾞﾒﾆｭｰ
934(1): 現代数学の系譜 雑談 古典ガロア理論も読む ◆e.a0E5TtKE [] 2020/01/03(金) 20:03:43.63 ID:ivt0JCXh(28/37) AAS
>>933
つづき
６）
“∈-loops” a ∈ b ∈ c ∈ ... ∈ a が、the notion of a “species”で、正則性公理に反せずに実現できる？（＾＾；
P74
Remark 3.3.1.
(i) One well-known consequence of the axiom of foundation of axiomatic set
theory is the assertion that “∈-loops”
a ∈ b ∈ c ∈ ... ∈ a
can never occur in the set theory in which one works. On the other hand, there
are many situations in mathematics in which one wishes to somehow “identify”
mathematical objects that arise at higher levels of the ∈-structure of the set theory
under consideration with mathematical objects that arise at lower levels of this
∈-structure. In some sense, the notions of a “set” and of a “bijection of sets” allow
one to achieve such “identifications”. That is to say, the mathematical objects at
both higher and lower levels of the ∈-structure constitute examples of the same
mathematical notion of a “set”, so that one may consider “bijections of sets” between those sets without violating the axiom of foundation. In some sense, the
notion of a species may be thought of as a natural extension of this observation.
That is to say,
the notion of a “species” allows one to consider, for instance, speciesisomorphisms between species-objects that occur at different levels of the
∈-structure of the set theory under consideration ? i.e., roughly speaking,
to “simulate ∈-loops” ? without violating the axiom of foundation.
Moreover, typically the sorts of species-objects at different levels of the ∈-structure
that one wishes to somehow have “identified” with one another occur as the result
of executing the mutations that arise in some sort of mutation-history
つづく
935: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 古典ガロア理論も読む ◆e.a0E5TtKE [] 2020/01/03(金) 20:06:34.23 ID:ivt0JCXh(29/37) AAS
>>934
つづき
７）（最後）
IUTを考えた動機”the original motivations”と、最後には”Corollary 3.12.”の説明か（＾＾；
P76
Remark 3.3.2. One somewhat naive point of view that constituted one of
the original motivations for the author in the development of theory of the present
series of papers is the following. In the classical theory of schemes, when considering
local systems on a scheme, there is no reason to restrict oneself to considering
local systems valued in, say, modules over a finite ring. If, moreover, there is
no reason to make such a restriction, then one is naturally led to consider, for
instance, local systems of schemes [cf., e.g., the theory of the “Galois mantle” in
[pTeich]], or, indeed, local systems of more general collections of mathematical
objects. One may then ask what happens if one tries to consider local systems
on the schemes that occur as fibers of a local system of schemes.
Example 3.5. Absolute Anabelian Geometry.
(i) Let S be a class of connected normal schemes that is closed under isomorphism [of schemes]. Suppose that there exists a set ES of schemes describable by
a set-theoretic formula with the property that every scheme of S is isomorphic to
some scheme belonging to ES .
P82
Remark 3.6.3
P84
Here, we observe in passing that the “apparently horizontal arrow-related” issue discussed in (H2) of simultaneous realization of “label-dependent” and “labelfree” mathematical objects is reminiscent of the vertical arrow portion of the bicoricity theory of [IUTchIII],
Theorem 1.5 ? cf. the discussion of [IUTchIII],
Remark 1.5.1, (i), (ii); Step (vii) of the proof of [IUTchIII], Corollary 3.12.
(引用終り)
以上
上下前次1-新書関写板覧索設栞歴
ｽﾚ情報 赤ﾚｽ抽出 画像ﾚｽ抽出 歴の未読ｽﾚ AAｻﾑﾈｲﾙ
ぬこの手 ぬこTOP 0.043s