Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
  
  
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJul 7th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexThere's a nice discussion now on [constructivenews](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/constructivenews) about the [[principle of omniscience]]. This is a weak form of excluded middle that obviously holds on finite sets is not considered constructive on $\mathbb{N}$. However, it actually holds on many infinite sets, as the discussion shows.

   There’s a nice discussion now on constructivenews about the principle of omniscience. This is a weak form of excluded middle that obviously holds on finite sets is not considered constructive on . However, it actually holds on many infinite sets, as the discussion shows.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJul 7th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexHi Toby - had to fix your attribution of the MO question referenced at [[principle of omniscience]] - it was due to David Feldman, not me, although I commented on the question.

   Hi Toby - had to fix your attribution of the MO question referenced at principle of omniscience - it was due to David Feldman, not me, although I commented on the question.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJul 7th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexInteresting! Is there an "unlimited principle of omniscience"? Does that just refer to LPO for all sets, i.e. EM?

   Interesting! Is there an “unlimited principle of omniscience”? Does that just refer to LPO for all sets, i.e. EM?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJul 9th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItex@ David: Oops! There are too many ‘David’s in the world, as you may have noticed. @ Mike: I've never heard anybody use that phrase, but I would probably interpret it as you did if I met it. Still, I don't really know for sure what inspired Bishop to use the word ‘limited’.

   @ David: Oops! There are too many ‘David’s in the world, as you may have noticed.

   @ Mike: I’ve never heard anybody use that phrase, but I would probably interpret it as you did if I met it. Still, I don’t really know for sure what inspired Bishop to use the word ‘limited’.