Two Approaches to Modelling the Universe: Synthetic Differential Geometry and Frame-Valued Sets
|Abstract||I describe two approaches to modelling the universe, the one having its origin in topos theory and differential geometry, the other in set theory. The first is synthetic differential geometry. Traditionally, there have been two methods of deriving the theorems of geometry: the analytic and the synthetic. While the analytical method is based on the introduction of numerical coordinates, and so on the theory of real numbers, the idea behind the synthetic approach is to furnish the subject of geometry with a purely geometric foundation in which the theorems are then deduced by purely logical means from an initial body of postulates. The most familiar examples of the synthetic geometry are classical Euclidean geometry and the synthetic projective geometry introduced by Desargues in the 17th century and revived and developed by Carnot, Poncelet, Steiner and others during the 19th century. The power of analytic geometry derives very largely from the fact that it permits the methods of the calculus, and, more generally, of mathematical analysis, to be introduced into geometry, leading in particular to differential geometry (a term, by the way, introduced in 1894 by the Italian geometer Luigi Bianchi). That being the case, the idea of a “synthetic” differential geometry seems elusive: how can differential geometry be placed on a “purely geometric” or “axiomatic” foundation when the apparatus of the calculus seems inextricably involved? To my knowledge there have been two attempts to develop a synthetic differential geometry. The first was initiated by Herbert Busemann in the 1940s, building on earlier work of Paul Finsler. Here the idea was to build a differential geometry that, in its author’s words, “requires no derivatives”: the basic objects in Busemann’s approach are not differentiable manifolds, but metric spaces of a certain type in which the notion of a geodesic can be defined in an intrinsic manner. I shall not have anything more to say about this approach. The second approach, that with which I shall be concerned here, was originally proposed in the 1960s by F..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Roberto Torretti (1983/1996). Relativity and Geometry. Dover Publications.
D. Farnsworth (ed.) (1972). Methods of Local and Global Differential Geometry in General Relativity. New York,Springer-Verlag.
Frank Arntenius & Cian Dorr (2012). Calculus as Geometry. In Frank Arntzenius (ed.), Space, Time and Stuff. Oxford University Press.
Sébastien Gandon (2009). Toward a Topic-Specific Logicism? Russell's Theory of Geometry in the Principles of Mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica 17 (1):35-72.
Gordon Belot (2003). Remarks on the Geometry of Visibles. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (213):581–586.
Lisa Shabel (2004). Kant's "Argument From Geometry". Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (2):195-215.
Banesh Hoffmann (1966). Perspectives in Geometry and Relativity. Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
Ladislav Kvasz (1998). History of Geometry and the Development of the Form of its Language. Synthese 116 (2):141–186.
Steven H. Cullinane (2012). Notes on Groups and Geometry, 1978-1986. Internet Archive.
Jan Platvono (1997). Formalization of Hilbert's Geometry of Incidence and Parallelism. Synthese 110 (1):127-141.
Peter Baofu (2009). The Future of Post-Human Geometry: A Preface to a New Theory of Infinity, Symmetry, and Dimensionality. Cambridge Scholars.
Jan von Plato (1997). Formalization of Hilbert's Geometry of Incidence and Parallelism. Synthese 110 (1):127-141.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads11 ( #107,400 of 722,874 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,874 )
How can I increase my downloads?