Toby Meadows

Perhaps.

I still think I'm making a very reasonable request.

Can someone recommend an intro to HoTT or MLTT that uses context based proof theory that is very precise (like a proof theorist) in its handling of the basic syntactic items and how they are assembled?

The HoTT book is not great on this. Rijke is much better but is a little too swift imo on this.

What happens at boarding school is supposed to stay at boarding school

It's helpful since then you know not to read the rest of the paper unless it's written by a French person or someone who's been dead for a millenia or two.

Any recs?

Learning a little algebraic topology. Can't get the Beach Boys out of my head.

When I worked in UK academia I recall hearing of a Japanese man who was baffled at how Britain had decided to run its universities like firms. “Why? Your universities are excellent and your firms are terrible.”

The first.

Where does one acquire an artificial duck?

Asking for a friend ...

jesus christ

Soon but not yet!

Thanks Jim!

I think that's the nicest way anyone's ever told me that my work makes them drowsy.

I'll raise you one foolish kitten ...

Bourbakan't do logic...

amiright?!

Shyamalan at his best!

That bittersweet sense of satisfaction that comes from spending months working on a formal framework that once took 25-30 pages to lay out and now takes 4.

That bittersweet sense of satisfaction that comes from spending months working on a formal framework that once took 25-30 pages to lay out and now takes 4.

Are there any good intro books/papers on HoTT that are more focused on the homotopy persective?

you assuming I know or care about whatever the fuck that is ...

AGI angst is theology for a new generation of bright dimwits.

New book "Explanation in Biology" with Cambridge University Press is out & open access!

Covers (1) causal explanation & (2) non-causal/mathematical explanation in life sciences--bio, neuro, etc 🌿🧬🧠

Introduction to philosophical work on scientific explanation!

www.cambridge.org/core/element...

A good philosopher of mathematics needs an eye for where the mathematics stops and the philosophy begins.

For many a good mathematician such an intuition is a hindrance.

I'll let you be the judge of that, but I think it's very natural for that proof to come off cold, and perhaps incomprehensible, if this is your starting point in the area.

It's Tony Martin's book on Determinacy.

If you want to learn it, the first proof is pretty simple once you've built a few intuitions about how these games work.

This is a very good book:

I think I'm getting the hang of Blitter.

Look at this idiot saying stuff on X! What a loser.

you never know ... it worked out quite well for me ... in the end

Deeply honored to be giving the Reinhardt Lecture in March at the University of Colorado at Boulder—plans are finalizing. I shall speak on my thought-experiment concerning how we might have come to view the continuum hypothesis as a fundamental axiom. Details soon.

Try being at that research center at the other end of its life ...

Are you one of those online fellows who likes spoiling the fun?