Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Problem with Cantor's diagonal argument
Replies: 65   Last Post: Mar 4, 2002 1:36 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Alan Stern Posts: 108 Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Problem with Cantor's diagonal argument
Posted: Mar 4, 2002 1:36 PM

"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger@erols.com> wrote in message news:<a4tua8\$34a32\$1@ID-114100.news.dfncis.de>...
> "Virgil" <vmhjr2@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news://vmhjr2-9E34CB.16521518022002@netnews.attbi.com...

> > In article <a4revv\$2cs7s\$1@ID-114100.news.dfncis.de>,
> > "Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger@erols.com> wrote:
> >

> > > > It is quite possible to do large amounts of mathematics in systems
> > > > whose axioms do not include or allow a law of the excluded middle.
> > > >
> > > > And there is a school of thought that rejects anything that cannot
> > > > be done in such systems.

> > >
> > > In other words, are these people who refuse to see the difference that

> most
> > > people implicitly understand to exist between "short" and "not tall"?
> >
> > More accurately, they refuse to accept that everyone is either tall
> > or not tall without some sort of constructive proof.

>
> Why does it not suffice for them to say that that's how "not" is *defined*?

Because that *isn't* how "not" is defined in intuitionistic logic.
The notions of truth, falsity, negation, ... all have intuitionistic
definitions that are somewhat different from the classical definitions
you may be accustomed to.

Under intuitionism, saying that A is true means something like this:
There is a constructive procedure for determining whether A holds or
not, and it gives a positive result. Saying that A is false means
that there is such a constructive procedure and it gives a negative
result.

Now you can see that from this point of view, A could be neither true
nor false. In particular, if there is no constructive procedure for
determining whether A holds or not, then an intuitionist would say
that neither A nor not-A is true.

Alan Stern

Date Subject Author
2/13/02 Henry
2/13/02 Andy Berget
2/14/02 Mike Oliver
2/14/02 Doug Norris
2/14/02 Keith Keller
2/14/02 Dudley Brooks
2/14/02 Mike Oliver
2/14/02 Dudley Brooks
2/14/02 Dave Seaman
2/14/02 Dudley Brooks
2/14/02 Dave Seaman
2/14/02 Dudley Brooks
2/14/02 Bob Kolker
2/14/02 Dave Seaman
2/14/02 Seth Dutter
2/14/02 mareg@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
2/14/02 Nico Benschop
2/14/02 mareg@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
2/14/02 Willondon
2/14/02 Henry
2/14/02 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
2/15/02 Doug Magnoli
2/14/02 mareg@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
2/14/02 Dudley Brooks
2/14/02 Nico Benschop
2/15/02 Nico Benschop
2/15/02 Nico Benschop
2/15/02 Nico Benschop
2/14/02 Dave Seaman
2/14/02 Herman Jurjus
2/14/02 Dave Seaman
2/15/02 Jon and Mary Frances Miller
2/15/02 Torkel Franzen
2/15/02 Virgil
2/15/02 Harlan Messinger
2/15/02 Virgil
2/15/02 Harlan Messinger
2/15/02 Virgil
2/18/02 Harlan Messinger
2/18/02 Virgil
2/19/02 Harlan Messinger
2/19/02 Virgil
2/19/02 Dudley Brooks
3/4/02 Alexey Dejneka
3/4/02 Torkel Franzen
3/4/02 Alan Stern
2/16/02 Chip Eastham
2/20/02 SRK
2/14/02 Dale Hurliman
2/14/02 Randy Poe
2/14/02 Henry
2/14/02 Randy Poe
2/14/02 nospam@auerbachatunity.ncsu.edu
2/14/02 Dudley Brooks
2/15/02 Chris Menzel
2/15/02 Dudley Brooks
2/14/02 Phil Carmody
2/14/02 Harlan Messinger
2/14/02 Jim Heckman
2/15/02 Randy Poe
2/15/02 LarryLard
2/18/02 Harlan Messinger
2/14/02 George Greene
2/15/02 Duran Castore
2/18/02 Jonathan Hoyle