[FOM] Re: Constructive analysis
amah8857 at brain.math.fau.edu
Thu Sep 5 16:37:37 EDT 2002
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Bas Spitters wrote:
I don't like your interpretation that BISH is the common core of INT RUSS
... because whatever one can prove in BISH is simultaneously proved in
You know better than me on this topic, so correct me if I am wrong, the spirit
of BISH is completely different than that of INT and they have very
little common interaction except in meta theory.
As I understand it (again correct me if I am wrong) BISH is more like
doing classical mathematics constructively and I sometime wonder why would
a constructivist be interested in that. The fundamental reason of doing
constructive mathematics is meaning as I understood it which is a product
of dissatisfaction from classical math. Then to embrace it as a guideline
is self-defeating to me.
> Dear Steve,
> May I suggest to look at:
> Bridges & Richman, "Varieties of constructive mathematics"
> to start with.
> The picture that is painted there is the following:
> CLASS INT RUSS
> \ | /
> CLASS is classical mathemathics
> INT is intuitionistic mathematics
> RUSS is Russian recursive constructive mathematics
> BISH is Bishop-style mathematics
> So BISH is the common core.
More information about the FOM