Re: Constructive Math query.

pa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Pierre Asselin) writes:

> Are there statements known to be undecidable in constructive
> mathematics ? There isn't a formal system to corral the
> possible proofs anymore...

There's no difference between classical and constructive mathematics
as regards formalizability.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>But maths is a formal system, or at least there is a formal system of ... >>mathematics, and rules of inference that describe legal moves from one ... >>the axioms of maths. ... > Given a particular system of axioms, say PA, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>But maths is a formal system, or at least there is a formal system of ... >>mathematics, and rules of inference that describe legal moves from one ... >>the axioms of maths. ... > Given a particular system of axioms, say PA, ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>But maths is a formal system, or at least there is a formal system of ... >>mathematics, and rules of inference that describe legal moves from one ... >>the axioms of maths. ... > Given a particular system of axioms, say PA, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>Do you see a material implication or logical deduction on the page? ... So the implication, a formula which is part of the "language of ZFC", is ... I would say that mathematics includes set theory, ... are not at odds with its formal system. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>Maths is an extension of FOPC, ... Mathematics is much older than FOPC, ... are the axioms of set theory, ... You are suggesting that maths is not this formal system, so I am lead to assume ...
    (sci.cognitive)