PLT: Type Theory 4 - ZFC set theory (part 4)
Loading...
Loading...
632
views
Loading...
Uploaded by rlindeque on Apr 27, 2011
The last two axioms of the ZFC set theory and a quick review.
12:13
PLT: Type Theory 2 - ZFC set theory (part 2)by rlindeque430 views- 14:24
PLT: Type Theory 1 - ZFC set theory (part 1)by rlindeque1,476 views
- 2:37
Programming the Movable Feast Machine with λ-Codonsby amidaniel88330 views
- 15:22
PLT: Type Theory 3 - ZFC set theory (part 3)by rlindeque280 views
- 14:58
(6/6) I. Data Driven Programming in Haskell Screencastby entirelysubjective529 views
- 14:15
Sets, part 6 - some proofs, to show just how easy they can be!by StudySourceOrg591 views
- 12:55
Introduction to Agda [2/5]by edwardkmett591 views
- 6:18
PLT: Lambda Calculus - Basics 2 (Church numerals)by rlindeque1,635 views
- 5:30
PLT: Lambda Calculus - Basics 3 (Operations on church numerals)by rlindeque1,402 views
- 1:02
Set Theory: Power Setsby MissMathPrincess1,823 views
- 0:52
LambdaCube 3D - Stunts exampleby kaviolalainen1,835 views
- 5:29
Learning Haskell #1 - Getting Haskellby pthariensflame2,509 views
- 0:17
oset videos - lambda calculusby rathereasy216 views
- 29:45
Gordon Plotkin - Robin Milner: A Craftsman of Tools for the Mindby EdinburghUniversity1,439 views
- 4:34
Is the Axiom of Choice Controversial??by theboombody348 views
- 2:55
Prime Numbers - The Sieve of Eratosthenesby rfbarrow44,983 views
- 9:51
8. Logic Lecture: Symbolic Logicby drjasonjcampbell3,530 views
- 2:53
ISEF '08 Winner: Knot Theory Mathematicsby channelintel26,767 views
- 1:46:55
Lecture 1 | String Theory and M-Theoryby StanfordUniversity92,467 views
- 55:13
Lecture 10 - Setsby nptelhrd50,874 views
@riteofwhey Sorry, not yet...
rlindeque 3 months ago
I enjoy this, thanks! Has the type theory stuff been posted yet? and if so where?
riteofwhey 3 months ago
@locke1689gmail Hi locke, yes if you turn on the youtube annotations, you'll see some errata. Sorry about the errors, I'm also learning the topics as I go along :). Can't promise anything but I'd like to come back and redo some of these in a year or two.
rlindeque 9 months ago
Your empty set axiom is wrong. It should be: There exists an empty st. forall x, x is not a member of the empty set.
The topics you have are interesting but you really need to work out ahead of time what you're going to say. You make so many mistakes that it is difficult to follow.
locke1689gmail 9 months ago
@Ormaaj I'm really glad that you're enjoying it so far! You're quite right, this is more a sort of historical intro that I hope to use to contrast with type theory. Keep in mind that I'm also teaching myself as I go along. My feeling was that most beginners don't really understand why we can't just use set theory as a foundation for type systems. I hope that I'll manage to illustrate differences in how set theory and type theory is stratified. But perhaps I should leave some mystery :)
rlindeque 10 months ago
Now I'm on the edge of my seat with where you're going with this. I first filled half a notebook on the axioms trying to cram this into my skull probably 3 years ago and still come back to them now and then. I can't say I've ever had a major epiphany as a result. They still seem kind of ethereal. Unless my understanding is fundamentally flawed (hopefully not) it's possible to get the semantics of typed lambda calculi and Hindley-Milnerish types without too much stress over the details of ZFC.
Ormaaj 10 months ago