Mercury
Mercury refused to cooperate with Ptolemy’s basic paradigm. You might guess that the fault lies with Mercury’s larger eccentricity, but studies show that bad data bears most of the blame. Mercury hugs the Sun, only appearing near the horizon close to sunrise or sunset, hardly ideal observation conditions.
MW: Last time we looked at the categorical rendition of “C is a model of B”:
where B and C are hyperdoctrines, and
(We’ve been saying that C(n) is the set of all n-ary relations on V, but I see no need to assume that.)
Filed under Categories, Conversations, Logic
Ernst Zermelo is remembered today chiefly for two results. His 1904 paper “Proof that every set can be well-ordered” introduced the Axiom of Choice. His 1908 paper “Investigations in the foundations of set theory” led to the most popular axiomatization of set theory. He thus claims credit for two of the letters of ZFC: Zermelo-Fraenkel with Choice.
Filed under History, Set Theory
MW: Last time we justified some equations and inequalities for our adjoints: they preserve some boolean operations, and “half-preserve” some others. And we incidentally made good use of the color palette!
Filed under Categories, Conversations, Logic
The Moon is the one solar body that does revolve around the Earth. It never displays retrogression. So you’d think Ptolemy wouldn’t “need no stinkin’ epicycles” for it. In fact, Ptolemy gave it a mechanism more complicated than that of any of the planets except Mercury! Here’s the model:
We saw how Cantor introduced ordinals originally as “symbols”,
0, 1, 2,…; ∞, ∞+1, ∞+2,…; 2∞, 2∞+1,…; 3∞,…; 4∞,…
∞2, ∞2+1,…; 2∞2,…; 3∞2,…; ∞3,…; ∞4,…
∞∞,…; ∞∞∞…; ∞∞∞∞…
Filed under History, Set Theory
Diagonal Argument 