Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: BHK interpretation

Bottom of Page

1 to 10 of 10

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2023

    fixed the pointer to:

    diff, v16, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2023

    I have similarly boosted the list of “original references”:

    However, albeit just from scanning through these: NONE of these seems to have a recognizable statement of the BHK interpretation, not even remotely (?) They would all fit well as references at intuitionism, where they have been missing. (Will copy them over now….)

    The first statement of the so-called “BHK interpretation” that I have found so far is in

    and Troelstra there does not attribute the idea to anyone, he states it as if its his original insight (“Let me first present… ” and then “We shall try to make these explanations more precise…” )

    Later in

    Troelstra does name the very same idea now after “BHK”, but he says “Brouwer-Heyting-Kreisel” instead of “Brouwer-Heyting-Kolomogorov”. (!?)

    (Indeed, Kreisel’s work is the only one that Troelstra substantially referred to in the previous 1969 article).

    diff, v17, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2023
    • (edited Feb 18th 2023)

    made explicit the relevant section number in

    Interestingly, Girard does not speak of “Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov” either, instead he says: “Heyting semantics”.

    So I have rewritten the entry’s original paragraph on attribution (now a new subsection: here).

    It would be good to track down who first spoke of the “Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogrov interpretation”, thereby misquoting Troelstra (apart from taking away his due credit).

    diff, v17, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2023

    am renaming the entry from “Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation” to “BHK interpretation” (short of renaming it to “Troelstra interpretation”)

    diff, v17, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2023

    fixed the previously broken link to

    • Martin Escardo, Chuangjie Xu, The inconsistency of a Brouwerian continuity principle with the Curry–Howard interpretation, 13th International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications (TLCA 2015), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs) 38 (2015) [doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.TLCA.2015.153, pdf]

    and added the missing publication data

    diff, v17, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2023

    Oh, now I see where Kolmogorov comes in: here. Will edit accordingly…

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2023

    Have now:

    rewritten and considerably expanded the Idea-section (here)

    added a list of scans of historical versions of the statement (here)

    further fine-tuned the discussion of attribution (here)

    diff, v18, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2023

    Added pointer to

    and added a screenshot of what exactly this says in its section 7.1.1.

    This seems to be the first reference where Heyting really states the content of what came to be known as the BHK interpretation of the logical connectives (24 years after Kolmogorov). While beginning in the 1930s Heyting speaks about a “proof interpretation” he does not seem to make the more concrete until this 1956 book (as far as I can see, so far).

    diff, v21, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2023

    further adjusted/expanded the version in the Attribution-section (here)

    also added pointer to

    qwhich seems to be the origin of switching from “Brouwer-Kolmogorov-Kreisel” to “Brouwer-Kolmogorov-Kolmogorov” (!)

    diff, v21, current

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2023
    • (edited Feb 22nd 2023)

    just for completeness, I have now added (here) also a scan of the statement according to Troelstra & van Dalen (1988)

    diff, v23, current

1 to 10 of 10

  1.