Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I created Bishop’s constructive mathematics by moving some material from Errett Bishop and adding some more discussion of what it is and isn’t. Comments and suggestions are very welcome; I’m still trying to figure out the best way to describe the relationship of this theory to other things like topos logic.
That’s a nicely clear and clarifying account.
We had had discussion here with Frank Waaldijk a while back regarding related clarification concerning the editing of the entry intuitionistic mathematics. Now I see that this entry doesn’t mention the name “Bishop”. Should it? I am never sure how to draw the line between “constructive” and “intuitionistic”.
intuitionistic mathematics points to constructive+mathematics which points to Bishop’s constructive mathematics, which is OK I think.
No one else is sure how to draw the line either. I think the standout warning box at the top of intuitionistic mathematics is sufficient, as long as no links mistakenly point there when they should go to constructive mathematics.
At Bishop’s constructive mathematics it says that Brouwer’s intuitionistic mathematics is regarded as a specialization of BISH.
I find that a useful statement. If true, this should be mentioned at intuitionistic mathematics.
It’s true that it’s regarded as such a specialization, but I’m personally somewhat dubious that it is, at least if by “Bishop’s constructive mathematics” one means what Bishop did rather than what some of his “followers” do, since Bishop worked with setoids and I doubt that Brouwer did. But I added a note to intuitionistic mathematics.
I also updated the page Bishop’s constructive mathematics based on an email discussion with some folks, adding references and clarifying that not all “Bishopites” actually use the same framework as Bishop.
Thanks!
1 to 8 of 8