In this post, we consider the following:
Conjecture. Let be an infinite set. Then, there exists a partition of
into two subsets that are in bijection with each other.
In this post, we consider the following:
Conjecture. Let be an infinite set. Then, there exists a partition of
into two subsets that are in bijection with each other.
We discuss some lemmas for functions on sets, which I wrote up some time ago to clarify and better understand the nature of .
We continue the discussion from this post.
In this post, we continue the discussion from the previous in the series.
Can we formalize the notion of two axiomatic systems being “equivalent,” especially when they are over different languages?
We continue the discussion started in this post.
In this post, we consider a variation of a unique factorization domain (UFD) that can more closely align with our intuition for prime factorization of integers — specifically, rather than the factorization being required to be up to invertible elements, here we require the factorization to be up to multiplicative identity. This is a seemingly stronger definition, and one that doesn’t seem to encompass fields trivially or obviously (in line with our intuition for integer prime factorization.)
We continue the discussion from the previous post in the series.
In this post, we try to tease out more motivation and a better systematization of analytic number theory, which traditionally has been viewed more as a collection of ad-hoc concepts. This may end up including new concepts that aren’t yet part of the standard literature, and hopefully these can yield more fruit in the subject.
Both model theory and category theory formalize the idea of “structure” in some way. Is this purely different formal interpretations of an informal idea, or is there more of a formal relationship beyond this between these two subjects?