Posted: Submitted by cj on 5 February 2008 - 3:13pm. |
|
![]()
Joined: 2006-10-10
Posts: 520 |
So in Metric Spaces today we were shown the Banach-Mazur game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach-Mazur_game). By far the most interesting aspect of it is its application in existence proofs, and in the lecture he demonstrated the existence of irrational numbers. Basically it really struck a chord with me. SO I did a bit of research and found this thing called determinacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinacy) which basically studies games like this. Has anyone come across determinacy? I'm looking for a couple of good book recommendations, or maybe some nice topics to study. |
Posted: 5 February 2008 - 4:32pm |
|
![]()
Joined: 2007-02-14
Posts: 105 |
I did not understand how that was a proof. |
Posted: 5 February 2008 - 4:37pm |
|
![]()
Joined: 2006-10-10
Posts: 520 |
It was an AWESOME proof |
Posted: 5 February 2008 - 5:28pm |
|
![]()
Joined: 2006-10-05
Posts: 699 |
I understood that it was a proof but I don't like it that much. Plus because of excursions I've already done the function which is everywhere cts and nowhere diff, and it's a lot easier just stating a function then proving, than making a winning strategy for this weird "game". Also i think any proof using that method could be reworded into a proper proof which would be much easier to understand This is just my opinion and i'm open to being wrong here. |
Posted: 5 February 2008 - 6:26pm |
|
![]()
Joined: 2006-10-10
Posts: 520 |
If, like you said, its just your opinion, how exactly are you open to being wrong? |
Posted: 5 February 2008 - 7:07pm |
|
![]()
Joined: 2006-10-01
Posts: 432 |
It's pro-theory man, deal with it. |
Posted: 5 February 2008 - 7:25pm |
|
![]()
Joined: 2006-10-01
Posts: 432 |
But no, that determinacy stuff is awesome- apparently, according to the colloquium we went to last term, logicians are coming close to a consensus on ZFC because of it: there is, I hear, a theorem which says that ZF + a weak version of the axiom of determinacy (that is an axiom that says a certain subset of 2-person baire type games are determined) is complete (for example- the previously independent CH is false in "ZFA") modulo Godel sentences. Which is a pretty bloody spiffy result... I cant remember if the form he presented was consistent with C though- regular AD isn't: it says all lebesgue sets are measurable, which is a bare faced lie (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitali_set)- for a more elementary proof try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_determinacy... But yeah... other than casual browsing + the talk I went to, no ideas on books- I'll have a look around. |
Posted: 5 February 2008 - 11:07pm |
|
![]()
Joined: 2006-10-10
Posts: 520 |
I'd pay you real money to teach me all this, Tom ;__; By far the stuff I'm most interested in in the subject |
Posted: 6 February 2008 - 1:07am |
|
![]()
Joined: 2006-10-01
Posts: 432 |
I have to say I don't really know it myself, just bits and bobs I've gleaned from random reading... Tell you what.. I'll borrow Jamie's copy of Set Theory by Jech and learn it- then I'll do a Dg in a couple of weeks- I think it's doable... :p |
Posted: 12 February 2008 - 2:32pm |
|
![]()
Joined: 2006-10-01
Posts: 432 |
Have been doing some research and it looks like an eminently doable topic... though I have been known to be over ambitious at fingers crossed should be on for next thurs. :D |