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 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 sheaves 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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2018

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2018

    That’s a nicely clear and clarifying account.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2018
    • (edited Jan 5th 2018)

    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”.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorspitters
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2018
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2018

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2018

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2018

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2018


    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorfwaaldijk
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2018
    • (edited Jan 24th 2018)

    i’m still too absorbed by other stuff to finish what i started in intuitionistic mathematics, although i admit i sometimes spend a disproportional amount of time on mathoverflow, on questions which probably could have waited…sorry.

    but i do intend to return to the issues mentioned above, to see if i can help formulate some essential points in a way that many mathematicians can readily understand or at least get a feel for.

    i just read the article Bishop’s constructive mathematics, and i have to say that it is quite extensive and well thought-out. but it also, somewhat, adds to the confusion, simply by pointing out how much is still unclear.

    the difficulty, i find, often lies in finding a simple way to phrase both the mathematical keypoints AND the key philosophical perspectives, without doing too much injustice to their own complexity and that of their interplay.

    i’m not saying i can do better for Bishop’s constructive mathematics than the current page! just saying what i would like to see ideally.

    on the intuitionistic mathematics page, i can probably try to clarify what i see as the relation between bishop’s constructive mathematics and intuitionism.

    the relation between bishop’s constructive mathematics and intuitionism cannot, i believe, be easily summarized. it is often emphasized that there are key elements of INT which are not accepted in BISH. seldom emphasized but true nonetheless is that there are key elements of BISH which are unacceptable in INT as well. mostly of course around predicativity issues as we discussed before, but this also affects axioms of choice i believe.

    please have some more patience, i promise i will first add something here before doing anything on mathoverflow. cheers, frank

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2018

    Thanks for the thoughts! I look forward to reading whatever you have to contribute, whenever you have time.