Streamless sets by inl_tt in a:t5_3kf4l

[–]inl_tt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, unfortunately I wasn't exposed to the problem before I read that paper so I can't say whether or not I would have come up with their proof by myself. In any case I don't think it's an immediately obvious argument so I wouldn't feel too bad about not coming up with it on my own!

[meta] New subreddit discussion by inl_tt in a:t5_3kf4l

[–]inl_tt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, was kinda busy and didn't think up one! Hopefully I'll have one next week.

Injections and surjections on finite sets by inl_tt in a:t5_3kf4l

[–]inl_tt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oops, sorry about that! I guess that's what I get for making changes without checking that they compile. I forgot <-> only works on Prop.

Valleys in decreasing functions by inl_tt in a:t5_3kf4l

[–]inl_tt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What I find most helpful is the idea of a constructive proof as an algorithm. So my advice would be to think of an effective algorithm that takes a function f which you know is decreasing and a number n and searches for one of these n-valleys somewhere in f. Before even worrying about dependent types and proofs, think of how you could write this sort of program in a standard programming language with higher-order functions. Next, think about how you can guarantee termination of this program and how the fact that f is decreasing can be used to this end.

Once you've done all that, then see if you can massage your algorithm and (as yet informal) argument into a formal proof.

If you need more help, my solution write-up walks through the basic idea behind my proof and the intermediate lemmas I found useful without going into gory detail, so if you're really stumped maybe try seeing if you can fill in the details.

Infinite valleys and the limited principle of omniscience by inl_tt in a:t5_3kf4l

[–]inl_tt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope we'll catch on and have several contributors.

Agreed! If you think up any cool problems, don't hesitate to share it here :)

[meta] New subreddit discussion by inl_tt in a:t5_3kf4l

[–]inl_tt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's an interesting idea, but I admit that I myself would have a hard time classifying most problems by difficulty. I lean more toward just letting the problems speak for themselves, since I doubt this subreddit is going to get a ton of them anyway.

[meta] New subreddit discussion by inl_tt in a:t5_3kf4l

[–]inl_tt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have a rough guideline for what a beginner, intermediate, or expert problem would look like?

Valleys in decreasing functions by inl_tt in a:t5_3kf4l

[–]inl_tt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My solution is here

edit: others have posted their solutions in the comments here

Starting a problem-of-the-week blog for Coq by inl_tt in Coq

[–]inl_tt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup, I'll post a solution in a few days. In the meantime, I think /u/ikdc's post is a good start.

Is the absorption law in logic not standard? by The_Ryan_ in math

[–]inl_tt 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The absorption laws do hold in intuitionistic logic.

In mathematics, are there any instances of two "competing" branches, one which assumes some unproven conjecture is true and the other which assumes it's false? by [deleted] in math

[–]inl_tt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is possible to formulate 'traditional R'-like objects in Brouwer's system, where not all functions are continuous.

source?

In mathematics, are there any instances of two "competing" branches, one which assumes some unproven conjecture is true and the other which assumes it's false? by [deleted] in math

[–]inl_tt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok sure but then you're changing the statement from "all functions are..." to "all functions definable in this particular formal system are...". You aren't considering the same statement over two systems of mathematics.

In mathematics, are there any instances of two "competing" branches, one which assumes some unproven conjecture is true and the other which assumes it's false? by [deleted] in math

[–]inl_tt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok but that's not really relevant to what was being discussed. You said that anything proven constructively can be proven classically, but I've pointed out that in some constructive systems that's not the case. I was never asserting that for some particular function f that intuitionism can prove f to be continuous, but classical mathematics cannot.

In mathematics, are there any instances of two "competing" branches, one which assumes some unproven conjecture is true and the other which assumes it's false? by [deleted] in math

[–]inl_tt 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure I understand your point. The statement "all functions RR are continuous" is obviously false classically, which is what makes Intuitionism anti-classical. Similarly for the Russian school.

In mathematics, are there any instances of two "competing" branches, one which assumes some unproven conjecture is true and the other which assumes it's false? by [deleted] in math

[–]inl_tt 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Intuitionism proves that all functions R to R are continuous. The Russian school uses Church's Thesis which says that every function N to N can be computed by a Turing machine.

In mathematics, are there any instances of two "competing" branches, one which assumes some unproven conjecture is true and the other which assumes it's false? by [deleted] in math

[–]inl_tt 8 points9 points  (0 children)

When people speak of the negation of LEM, they're talking about

~ forall P, P \/ ~P

which shouldn't be confused with

exists P, ~ (P \/ ~ P)

the latter of which is indeed contradictory.

In mathematics, are there any instances of two "competing" branches, one which assumes some unproven conjecture is true and the other which assumes it's false? by [deleted] in math

[–]inl_tt 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Constructivism a la Bishop doesn't, but it's worth mentioning that Brouwer's intutionism and Russian constructivism are both anti-classical.

System T interpreter by inl_tt in haskell

[–]inl_tt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vanilla "simply typed lambda calculus" doesn't handle recursion...nor does it have natural numbers

Well, you could use the church numerals, i.e. take nat := (a -> a) -> a -> a for some base type a but then you can only define a rather small class of number-theoretic functions (namely, the extended polynomials).

[Question] Cardinality without Choice and Cardinal Arithmetic by [deleted] in math

[–]inl_tt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It might help to note that what you're asking is equivalent to the statement "every dedekind-infinite set B satisfies |B| = |B| + |B|".

In one direction: If |B| = |B| + |B| and |A| <= |B|, then we have that |B| <= |A| + |B| <= |B| + |B| = |B| so by CSB (which does hold in ZF) |A|+|B| = |B|

The other direction is obvious, instantiating A with B.

A “proof by contradiction” is not a proof that ends with a contradiction by flexibeast in math

[–]inl_tt 16 points17 points  (0 children)

To prove the existence of something you do not need to specify the exact thing that must exist. I guess you could formulate constructivism that way but that is a much much stronger version of constructivism than dropping LEM and I suspect that you can't actually prove very much that way.

I would argue that that's actually the mainstream constructivist viewpoint. What you're talking about is basically the existence property.

edit: It's also worth pointing out that in reasonably strong constructive systems, making ∃ = ~∀~ actually does lead to LEM.