Re: Constructive Proofs (Bishop)
- From: Jan Burse <janburse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:19:36 +0100
Hi
If you want simple algorithms, use bounded
quantifiers. A lot of constructive analysis
is using this, and not intuitionistic logic.
Bye
guyontheinet@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Does the difference between Bishop-Constructive mathematics and.
classical mathematics arise only in the case of a proof that shows
that a particular kind of thing exists. If a theorem doesn't assert
that a particular kind of object exists are classical and
Bishop-constructivist proofs of that theorem interchangeable in
the sense that a Bishop proof gives an _exact_ classical proof
and vice verse for theorems of that type?
If one avoids proof-by-contradiction to prove that something
exists is that enough to ensure that his proof gives an algorithm
of how to construct that something? Does the algorithm just
"fall out" naturally if one follows that guideline or are there more
things that a constructivist must do to ensure that his proof
gives an algorithm?
Thanks & Happy Holidays.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Constructive Proofs (Bishop)
- From: guyontheinet
- Re: Constructive Proofs (Bishop)
- References:
- Constructive Proofs (Bishop)
- From: guyontheinet
- Constructive Proofs (Bishop)
- Prev by Date: Re: A Question About Consistent Theories
- Next by Date: Re: Constructive Proofs (Bishop)
- Previous by thread: Constructive Proofs (Bishop)
- Next by thread: Re: Constructive Proofs (Bishop)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|