Inter-universal geometry と ABC予想 (応援スレ) 77

[過去ﾛｸﾞ] Inter-universal geometry と ABC予想 (応援スレ) 77 (1002ﾚｽ)
上下前次 1-新
通常表示 512ﾊﾞｲﾄ分割ﾚｽ栞

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

249: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 ◆yH25M02vWFhP  [] 2025/11/05(水) 10:13:36.31 ID:K/Lr81ky

>>245 追加
(google検索)：
Colin McLarty,The Large structures of Grothendieck founded on finite-order arithmetic. Rev.Symbol.Logo
＜AI による概要＞
Colin McLarty's paper, "The Large Structures of Grothendieck Founded on Finite-Order Arithmetic," published in the Review of Symbolic Logic in 2020, argues that the complex tools of Grothendieck-style algebraic geometry, such as toposes and derived categories, can be founded on the much weaker system of finite-order arithmetic, rather than the stronger ZFC set theory typically used for such foundations. This research aims to close the foundational gap by showing that these powerful "large structure" tools only require a significantly weaker logical strength to be established, with one specific topos of sets already requiring this level of strength.
・Core argument: McLarty demonstrates that the theorems of Grothendieck's Éléments de géométrie algébrique (EGA) and Séminaire de géométrie algébrique du Bois-Marie (SGA), along with derived categories, can be formally grounded using finite-order arithmetic.
・Weakest possible foundation: The paper establishes that finite-order arithmetic is the weakest possible foundation for these tools because even a single elementary topos of sets with infinity is already this strong.
・Implication for set theory: This finding implies that one does not need the full strength of ZFC, which is stronger than finite-order arithmetic, to prove the consistency of these large structures. The work shows that their foundations can be established with axioms that have the same proof-theoretic strength as finite-order arithmetic, which Zermelo set theory (Z) proves is consistent.
・Practical insight: The work formalizes the practical insight that tools of cohomology, while theoretically requiring large structures, often stay close to arithmetic in their actual application.
・Publication details: The paper was published in the Review of Symbolic Logic (Volume 13, Issue 2, 2020), with the doi: 10.1017/s1755020319000340 and can be found on arXiv as paper 1102.1773.
（AI の回答には間違いが含まれている場合があります）

つづく

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1761878205/249

250: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 ◆yH25M02vWFhP  [] 2025/11/05(水) 10:13:53.81 ID:K/Lr81ky

つづき

（追加）>>247より
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/360290/how-strong-a-set-theory-is-necessary-for-practical-purposes-in-sheaf-theory
How strong a set theory is necessary for practical purposes in sheaf theory?
asked May 14, 2020 user158035
Is it known how much of ZFC is actually necessary for the basic, familiar constructions and theorems in sheaf theory, along the lines of section II.1 (and its exercises) in Hartshorne's "Algebraic Geometry" textbook?

1 Answer
Colin McLarty has looked into this
The large structures of Grothendieck founded on finite order arithmetic, Review of Symbolic Logic 13 issue 2 (2020) pp. 296--325, doi:10.1017/S1755020319000340, https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1773
with abstract (emphasis added):
The large-structure tools of cohomology including toposes and derived categories stay close to arithmetic in practice, yet published foundations for them go beyond ZFC in logical strength. We reduce the gap by founding all the theorems of Grothendieck’s SGA, plus derived categories, at the level of Finite-Order Arithmetic, far below ZFC. This is the weakest possible foundation for the large-structure tools because one elementary topos of sets with infinity is already this strong.
answered May 14, 2020
David Roberts♦
(引用終り)
以上

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1761878205/250

251: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 ◆yH25M02vWFhP  [] 2025/11/05(水) 10:22:12.78 ID:K/Lr81ky

>>249 追加
(google訳)（一部手直し）
＜AI による概要＞
コリン・マクラーティの論文「有限階算術に基づくグロタンディークの大規模構造」は、2020年の記号論理学のレビュー、グロタンディークスタイルの代数幾何学の複雑なツール、例えばトポスや導来カテゴリなどは、そのような基礎付けに通常使用される強力なZFC集合論ではなく、はるかに弱い有限階算術体系の上に成り立つと主張している。この研究は、これらの強力な「大規模構造」ツールが確立されるには、はるかに弱い論理的強度しか必要とせず、特定の集合のトポスがすでにこのレベルの強度を必要としていることを示すことで、基礎的なギャップを埋めることを目指しています。
・中心的な議論:マクラーティは、グロタンディークの幾何学計算手法( EGA ) とボワマリー関数セミネール( SGA ) の定理が、derived categoriesとともに、有限階数の算術を使用して形式的に根拠づけられることを示しています。
・最も弱い基盤:この論文では、無限集合の単一の基本トポスでもすでにこのくらい強力であるため、有限階数算術はこれらのツールにとって最も弱い基盤であるとしています。
・集合論への示唆：この発見は、これらの大規模構造の無矛盾性を証明するために、有限階数算術よりも強いZFCの完全な強さを必要としないことを意味する。本研究は、有限階数算術と同等の証明論的強さを持つ公理によってこれらの構造の基礎を確立できることを示しており、有限階数算術はツェルメロ集合論（Z）によって無矛盾性が証明されている。
・実践的な洞察:この研究は、コホモロジーのツールは理論的には大規模な構造を必要とするものの、実際の応用では算術に近いことが多いという実践的な洞察を形式化しています。
・出版の詳細：この論文はReview of Symbolic Logic（第13巻、第2号、2020年）にdoi：10.1017/s1755020319000340で出版され、arXivでは論文1102.1773として見つけることができます。

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1761878205/251

252: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 ◆yH25M02vWFhP  [] 2025/11/05(水) 11:01:07.52 ID:K/Lr81ky

>>249 追加
>Founded on Finite-Order Arithmetic

日本語では 有限階算術（あるいは高階算術か） とでもいうのか？
Second-order arithmetic、2階算術は 日本語であるようですが

”Finite-Order Arithmetic”は、不勉強で初耳です
英語検索でも、”Finite-Order Arithmetic”は あまりヒットしないす ；ｐ）

でも、私は 高階論者でして
「人の思考は 一階論理に縛られない」と思っています　（＾＾
そういう意味で、

(参考)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_arithmetic
Second-order arithmetic
In mathematical logic, second-order arithmetic is a collection of axiomatic systems that formalize the natural numbers and their subsets. It is an alternative to axiomatic set theory as a foundation for much, but not all, of mathematics.

A precursor to second-order arithmetic that involves third-order parameters was introduced by David Hilbert and Paul Bernays in their book Grundlagen der Mathematik.[1] The standard axiomatization of second-order arithmetic is denoted by Z2.

Second-order arithmetic includes, but is significantly stronger than, its first-order counterpart Peano arithmetic. Unlike Peano arithmetic, second-order arithmetic allows quantification over sets of natural numbers as well as numbers themselves.
Because real numbers can be represented as (infinite) sets of natural numbers in well-known ways, and because second-order arithmetic allows quantification over such sets, it is possible to formalize the real numbers in second-order arithmetic. For this reason, second-order arithmetic is sometimes called "analysis".[2]

https://googology.fandom.com/ja/wiki/%E4%BA%8C%E9%9A%8E%E7%AE%97%E8%A1%93
巨大数研究 Wiki
二階算術

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%80%86%E6%95%B0%E5%AD%A6
逆数学は大抵の場合、2階算術について実行され、定理が構成的解析と証明論に動機付けられた2階算術の部分体系のうち、どれに対応するのかを研究する。 2階算術を使うことで、再帰理論からの多くの技術も利用できる。実際、逆数学の結果の多くは、計算可能性解析学の結果を反映している。
逆数学は、Harvey Friedman (1975, 1976)によってはじめて言及された。基本文献は(Simpson 2009)を参照。

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1761878205/252

253: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 ◆yH25M02vWFhP  [] 2025/11/05(水) 11:15:26.89 ID:K/Lr81ky

>>252 補足
用語について
・高階算術
・finite order arithmetic
・Higher-order logic
・Higher order arithmetic by Colin McLarty自身 2014 mathoverflow

(参考)
http://www.aichi-gakuin.ac.jp/~yamasita/slides/wakate_izawa.pdf
高階算術における抽象論
井澤　昇平
東北大学理学研究科数学専攻
数学基礎論若手の会’１０
Contents.
1 Introduction.
2 Definition of axioms of finite order arithmetic.

検索＜higher order arithmetic＞
https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15288
[Submitted on 29 Aug 2023]
Conservativity of Type Theory over Higher-order Arithmetic
Benno van den Berg, Daniël Otten

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-order_logic
Higher-order logic
In mathematics and logic, a higher-order logic (abbreviated HOL) is a form of logic that is distinguished from first-order logic by additional quantifiers and, sometimes, stronger semantics. Higher-order logics with their standard semantics are more expressive, but their model-theoretic properties are less well-behaved than those of first-order logic.
The term "higher-order logic" is commonly used to mean higher-order simple predicate logic. Here "simple" indicates that the underlying type theory is the theory of simple types, also called the simple theory of types. Leon Chwistek and Frank P. Ramsey proposed this as a simplification of ramified theory of types specified in the Principia Mathematica by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell. Simple types is sometimes also meant to exclude polymorphic and dependent types.[1]

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/190477/higher-order-arithmetic-and-fragments-of-zfc
Higher order arithmetic and fragments of ZFC
Zbierski "Models for Higher Order Arithmetics" (BULL. DE L'ACAD. POLONAISE DES SCIENCES Serie des sciences math., astr. et phys. - Vol. XIX, No. 7, 1971) defines ZFn
as ZFC with the power set axiom limited to n
successive power sets starting from the natural numbers N
. Note this includes the axiom of choice. He proves ZFn
is a conservative extension of n+2
order arithmetic with the axiom scheme of choice.. He notes Gandy had proved already ZF2
is not conservative over 4
th order arithmetic without the axiom scheme of choice.
But what is known about the case where the axiom of choice is also removed from ZF2 ?
Sochor "Constructibility in higher order arithmetics" (Arch. Math. Logic (1993) 32:381-389) shows that n
-th order arithmetic without choice can interpret n
-th order arithmetic with choice.though obviously it is not a conservative extension. So the issue is not equiconsistency. It is conservativity.
asked Dec 11, 2014 at 13:57
Colin McLarty

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1761878205/253

255: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 ◆yH25M02vWFhP  [] 2025/11/05(水) 11:39:46.99 ID:K/Lr81ky

>>250
>Colin McLarty has looked into this
>The large structures of Grothendieck founded on finite order arithmetic, Review of Symbolic Logic 13 issue 2 (2020) pp. 296--325, doi:10.1017/S1755020319000340, arxiv.org/abs/1102.1773

これ、リンクのarxivは 2014年版だな
30 Apr 2014 COLIN MCLARTY
1. Outline
Finite order arithmetic (Takeuti, 1987, Part II), or simple type theory with infinity, is n-th order arithmetic for all finite n. It deals with numbers, sets of numbers, and sets of those, up through any fixed finite level. Sections 2– 3 develop basic cohomology in any one of several set theories equivalent to this.
Sections 4–5 give a weak notion of a universe U, and a simpler notion of Ucategory than Grothendieck’s (SGA 4 I.1.2), in a theory of classes and collections conservative over set theory. Section 6 proves standard theorems on toposes, derived categories, and fibered categories. This is the weakest possible level for Grothendieck’s tools since a single elementary topos of sets with infinity is already as strong as finite order arithmetic.
Section 7 relates this to proofs of Fermat’s Last Theorem.

つづく

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1761878205/255

257: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 ◆yH25M02vWFhP  [] 2025/11/05(水) 11:40:17.08 ID:K/Lr81ky

つづき

7. A proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem in PA?
We have founded the whole SGA for arbitrary sites, while individual proofs in number theory use only low degree cohomology of sites close to arithmetic.
Detailed bounds may suffice to get existing proofs into n-order arithmetic for relatively low n, as in Section 3.8.4. That might be a good context for such hard logical analysis as Macintyre (2011) begins for FLT.
More work might bound the constructions within a conservative extension of PA (Takeuti, 1978) to show some existing proof of FLT works essentially in PA.
It might help further reduce the proof to Exponential Function Arithmetic (EFA) as conjectured in (Friedman, 2010).
Such estimates are likely to be difficult.
This is no logical end run around serious arithmetic.
Not motivated by concern with logic, Kisin (2009b) extends and simplifies (Wiles, 1995), generally using geometry less than commutative algebra, visibly reducing the demands on set theory. And Kisin (2009a) completes a different proof of FLT by a strategy of Serre advanced by Khare and Wintenberger.

References
Takeuti, G. (1987). Proof Theory. Elsevier Science Ltd, 2nd edition.
(引用終り)
以上

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1761878205/257

260: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 ◆yH25M02vWFhP  [] 2025/11/05(水) 11:52:00.37 ID:K/Lr81ky

>>255
Finite order arithmetic (Takeuti, 1987, Part II)
>>257
References
Takeuti, G. (1987). Proof Theory. Elsevier Science Ltd, 2nd edition.

竹内 外史先生だね
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%86%85%E5%A4%96%E5%8F%B2
竹内 外史（たけうち がいし、1926年1月25日 - 2017年5月10日）
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaisi_Takeuti
Gaisi Takeuti (竹内 外史, Takeuchi, Gaishi; January 25, 1926 – May 10, 2017[1]) was a Japanese mathematician, known for his work in proof theory.[2]
Notes
2 Takeuti 2013.
・Takeuti, Gaisi (2013) [1975]. Proof theory (Second ed.). Mineola, New York: Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-49073-1.

なお>>257より
(google訳)
7. PAにおけるフェルマーの最終定理の証明？
私たちは任意のサイトに対してSGA全体を構築しましたが、数論における個々の証明は、算術に近いサイトの低次コホモロジーしか使用していません。
詳細な評価によって、第3.8.4節のように、既存の証明を比較的低いnに対するn階算術に持ち込むことができるかもしれません。これは、マッキンタイア（2011）がフェルマーの最終定理に対して始めたような、困難な論理分析を行うのに適した文脈となるでしょう。
さらに研究を進めることで、PAの保存的拡大（竹内、1978）の範囲内で構成を限定し、フェルマーの最終定理の既存の証明が本質的にPA内で機能することを示すことができるかもしれません。
これは、フリードマン（2010）で予想されているように、証明を指数関数算術（EFA）にさらに還元するのに役立つ可能性があります。
このような評価は困難である可能性が高いです。
これは、真剣な算術を回避するための論理的な抜け道ではありません。
論理への関心に動機づけられているわけではありませんが、キシン（2009b）は（ワイルズ、1995）を拡張および簡略化し、一般的に可換代数よりも幾何学の使用を少なくすることで、集合論への要求を明らかに軽減しています。また、キシン（2009a）は、カーレとヴィンテンベルガーによって発展させられたセールによる戦略を用いて、フェルマーの最終定理の別の証明を完成させています。
(引用終り)

なので、Colin McLarty 先生も 2014版では 「7. PAにおけるフェルマーの最終定理の証明？」で ？マーク付きだｗ （＾＾
2020版でも 同じかな　；ｐ）

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1761878205/260

264: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 ◆yH25M02vWFhP  [] 2025/11/05(水) 13:20:07.80 ID:K/Lr81ky

>>260 補足
>7. PAにおけるフェルマーの最終定理の証明？

素数定理の歴史(下記)と対比すると分かり易いだろう
１）素数定理は、ゼータ関数と複素関数論を用いる高等数学による証明だったが
　アトル・セルバーグ[5]とポール・エルデシュ[6]は初等的な証明が得られた（下記）
２）素数の話だから、初等整数論内の証明があっても おかしくは ない
　一方、高等数学による プロ数学者には 見通しのよい証明があってもいい（高等数学がしばしば先行する）
　高等数学による証明と 初等整数論内の証明とは 両立する

なお、”PAにおけるフェルマーの最終定理の証明？”は、まだ？つき・・

(参考)
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%B4%A0%E6%95%B0%E5%AE%9A%E7%90%86#%E3%83%AB%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A3%E3%83%B3%E3%83%89%E3%83%AB2007
素数定理
歴史
ベルンハルト・リーマンによる新たな解析的方法が発表された[3]が、最終的には1896年にシャルル＝ジャン・ド・ラ・ヴァレー・プーサン（英語版）とジャック・アダマール[4]がそれぞれ独立に証明した。当初与えられた証明はゼータ関数と複素関数論を用いる高度なものであったが、1949年にアトル・セルバーグ[5]とポール・エルデシュ[6]は初等的な証明を与えた。
この複素解析学を用いない初等的な証明は当時大きな驚きをもって迎えられた。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number_theorem
Prime number theorem
History of the proof of the asymptotic law of prime numbers
Carl Friedrich Gauss considered the same question at age 15 or 16 "in the year 1792 or 1793", according to his own recollection in 1849.[6]
An important paper concerning the distribution of prime numbers was Riemann's 1859 memoir "On the Number of Primes Less Than a Given Magnitude", the only paper he ever wrote on the subject. Riemann introduced new ideas into the subject, chiefly that the distribution of prime numbers is intimately connected with the zeros of the analytically extended Riemann zeta function of a complex variable. In particular, it is in this paper that the idea to apply methods of complex analysis to the study of the real function π(x) originates.
Several different proofs of it were found, including the "elementary" proofs of Atle Selberg (1949)[11] and Paul Erdős (1949).[12] Hadamard's and de la Vallée Poussin's original proofs are long and elaborate; later proofs introduced various simplifications through the use of Tauberian theorems but remained difficult to digest. A short proof was discovered in 1980 by the American mathematician Donald J. Newman.[13][14] Newman's proof is arguably the simplest known proof of the theorem, although it is not "elementary" since it uses Cauchy's integral theorem from complex analysis.

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1761878205/264

265: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 ◆yH25M02vWFhP  [] 2025/11/05(水) 13:44:07.75 ID:K/Lr81ky

>>257
>Not motivated by concern with logic, Kisin (2009b) extends and simplifies (Wiles, 1995), generally using geometry less than commutative algebra, visibly reducing the demands on set theory. And Kisin (2009a) completes a different proof of FLT by a strategy of Serre advanced by Khare and Wintenberger.

下記だね
References
Kisin, M. (2009a). Modularity of 2-adic Barsotti-Tate representations. Inventiones Mathematicae, 178(3):587–634.
Kisin, M. (2009b). Moduli of finite flat group schemes, and modularity. Annals of Mathematics, 170(3):1085–1180.

これを、検索すると(2009a)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226552399_Modularity_of_2-adic_Barsotti-Tate_representations
Modularity of 2-adic Barsotti-Tate representations
December 2009Inventiones mathematicae 178(3):587-634
Abstract
We prove a modularity lifting theorem for two dimensional, 2-adic, potentially Barsotti-Tate representations. This proves hypothesis (H) of Khare-Wintenberger, and completes the proof of Serre’s conjecture. The main new ingredient is a classification of connected finite flat group schemes over rings of integers of finite extensions of ℚ2.

(2009b)：こちらはフルテキストが落とせるな
（This provides a more conceptual way of establishing the Shimura-Taniyama-Weil conjecture）
https://annals.math.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/annals-v170-n3-p03-p.pdf
Moduli of finite flat group schemes, and modularity By MARK KISIN
Abstract
We prove that, under some mild conditions, a two dimensional p-adic Galois representation which is residually modular and potentially Barsotti-Tate at p is modular.
This provides a more conceptual way of establishing the Shimura-Taniyama-Weil conjecture, especially for elliptic curves which acquire good reduction over a wildly ramified extension of 3.
The main ingredient is a new technique for analyzing flat deformation rings. It involves resolving them by spaces which parametrize finite f lat group scheme models of Galois representations.

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1761878205/265

上下前次 1-新書関写板覧索設栞歴

あと 734 ﾚｽあります
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 0.014s