Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: how does Indirect NonExistence compare with Constructivism school of
math? #197; 2nd ed; Correcting Math

Replies: 49   Last Post: Oct 22, 2009 2:43 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Keith Ramsay

Posts: 1,745
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math

Posted: Oct 12, 2009 1:51 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Oct 11, 12:07 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
|OK. I understood that. This is a redefinition of the symbols
|from their more usual meaning, though, isn't it? Or perhaps
|an overlay on top of and in addition to the usual meaning.
|It seems a confusing terminological approach, but every
|human endeavor is full of such.

Well, "more usual" seems to mean essentially "most popular".
Do we want to make it a popularity contest? The intuitionist
interpretation of the logical connectives and quantifiers is
much more natural than it seems at first glance if you're
only familiar with classical logic (the "usual").

|Perhaps I could re-ask my question in a slightly different
|way? Is it possible for a mathematical structure
|
|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_(mathematical_logic)
|
|to exist in which (?x)~Fx is false and (?x)Fx is also false?
|It seems to me that it is clearly not possible.

It's intuitionistically valid to reason that if (Ex)Fx is
false then (Ax)~Fx is true. So indeed, they cannot both
be false.

Intuitionism distinguishes between "they cannot both be
false" and "one of them is true". If the two statements
are A and B, then "they cannot both be false" is
~(~A & ~B) while "one of them is true is A v B. The
former is equivalent to ~~(A v B). The latter implies
that there's a way to find one of them that is true.

|Sure, but does it then follow that there is no useful
|distinction to be had between knowing how to find
|a value x such that Fx and knowing that such a value
|exists? It seems to me that such a distinction is a
|useful one, in which case the constructivist stricture
|seems dubious, unreasonable, anti-pragmatic.

The distinction is still there. You could for example
be told by a reliable person that something exists
without being told how to find it.

Intuitionism and constructive mathematics generally
is more systematic about making distinctions, not
less. When you "know that a value exists" classically,
you are making some kind of discovery, which you have
arranged to describe using "existential" language.

If (as is typically the case) what has happened is that
you've found a contradiction arises from assuming that
no such value exists, then might it not be more
illuminating to say ~(Ax) ~Fx rather than Ex Fx?
That strikes me as being a very direct way of stating
what you know, as opposed to "one exists but I don't
know how to find it", which could be the case if
someone else has found out how to find it but only
told you that it is possible. The apparent advantage
of using classical reasoning is just that you get to
"simplify" ~(Ax)~Fx down to (Ex)Fx, but then have this
side explanation for why (Ex)Fx has a weaker meaning
for you than constructive mathematics gives it. And
then you have this additional way of boosting up the
meaning of the quantifier by saying, "and I know how
to find it". I don't find it obviously easier to go
through all those maneuvers just to say either that
~(Ax)~Fx or (Ex)Fx.

Keith Ramsay


Date Subject Author
10/10/09
Read how does Indirect NonExistence compare with Constructivism school of
math? #197; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/10/09
Read Re: how does Indirect NonExistence compare with Constructivism school
of math? #198; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/10/09
Read Indirect NonExistence elevates the Constructivist School as the
highest #199; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/11/09
Read Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/11/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Marshall
10/11/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Aatu Koskensilta
10/11/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Jan Burse
10/11/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Jan Burse
10/11/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Marshall
10/12/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Keith Ramsay
10/12/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/12/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/12/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/13/09
Read six counterexamples to the Goldbach Conjecture and one for FLT #207;
2nd ed; Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/13/09
Read Re: six counterexamples to the Goldbach Conjecture and one for FLT
#207; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
anonymous.rubbertube@yahoo.com
10/13/09
Read Re: six counterexamples to the Goldbach Conjecture and one for FLT
#210; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/14/09
Read Re: six counterexamples to the Goldbach Conjecture and one for FLT
#211; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/14/09
Read Re: six counterexamples to the Goldbach Conjecture and one for FLT
#212; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/14/09
Read comments on the viability of Goldbach Conjecture #213; 2nd ed;
Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/14/09
Read easiest counterexamples to FLT #214; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/15/09
Read largest single problem in math today-- Finite #216; Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/12/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Marshall
10/16/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Keith Ramsay
10/16/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Keith Ramsay
10/16/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Brian Q. Hutchings
10/17/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/18/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/18/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Aatu Koskensilta
10/18/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/18/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/18/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Marshall
10/18/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/18/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Marshall
10/18/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/19/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Marshall
10/19/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/19/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Marshall
10/21/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/21/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Marshall
10/19/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Aatu Koskensilta
10/22/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/21/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Trop
10/17/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Marshall
10/18/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/18/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Marshall
10/18/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism
is mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
namducnguyen
10/16/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #200; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Marshall
10/11/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #201; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/11/09
Read Re: Whitehead & Russell on Reductio A.A. and when Constructivism is
mainstream #202; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/14/09
Read Re: how does Indirect NonExistence compare with Constructivism school
of math? #197; 2nd ed; Correcting Math
Trop

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.