Results 1  10
of
21
On the computational content of the axiom of choice
 The Journal of Symbolic Logic
, 1998
"... We present a possible computational content of the negative translation of classical analysis with the Axiom of Choice. Our interpretation seems computationally more direct than the one based on Godel's Dialectica interpretation [10, 18]. Interestingly, thisinterpretation uses a re nement of the rea ..."
Abstract

Cited by 34 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a possible computational content of the negative translation of classical analysis with the Axiom of Choice. Our interpretation seems computationally more direct than the one based on Godel's Dialectica interpretation [10, 18]. Interestingly, thisinterpretation uses a re nement of the realizibility semantics of the absurdity proposition, which is not interpreted as the empty type here. We alsoshowhow to compute witnesses from proofs in classical analysis, and how to interpret the axiom of Dependent Choice and Spector's Double Negation Shift.
The Structure of Complete Degrees
, 1990
"... This paper surveys investigations into how strong these commonalities are. More concretely, we are concerned with: What do NPcomplete sets look like? To what extent are the properties of particular NPcomplete sets, e.g., SAT, shared by all NPcomplete sets? If there are are structural differences ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper surveys investigations into how strong these commonalities are. More concretely, we are concerned with: What do NPcomplete sets look like? To what extent are the properties of particular NPcomplete sets, e.g., SAT, shared by all NPcomplete sets? If there are are structural differences between NPcomplete sets, what are they and what explains the differences? We make these questions, and the analogous questions for other complexity classes, more precise below. We need first to formalize NPcompleteness. There are a number of competing definitions of NPcompleteness. (See [Har78a, p. 7] for a discussion.) The most common, and the one we use, is based on the notion of mreduction, also known as polynomialtime manyone reduction and Karp reduction. A set A is mreducible to B if and only if there is a (total) polynomialtime computable function f such that for all x, x 2 A () f(x) 2 B: (1) 1
The fundamental theorem of algebra: a constructive development without choice
 Pacific Journal of Mathematics
, 2000
"... Is it reasonable to do constructive mathematics without the axiom of countable choice? Serious schools of constructive mathematics all assume it one way or another, but the arguments for it are not compelling. The fundamental theorem of algebra will serve as an example of where countable choice come ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Is it reasonable to do constructive mathematics without the axiom of countable choice? Serious schools of constructive mathematics all assume it one way or another, but the arguments for it are not compelling. The fundamental theorem of algebra will serve as an example of where countable choice comes into play andhow to proceedin its absence. Along the way, a notion of a complete metric space, suitable for a choiceless environment, is developed. By constructive mathematics I mean, essentially, mathematics that is developed along the lines proposed by Errett Bishop [1]. More precisely, I mean mathematics that is done in the context of intuitionistic logic — without the lawof excluded middle. My reasons for identifying these notions are discussed in [9] and [10], the basic contention being that constructive mathematics has the same subject matter as classical mathematics. Ruitenburg [11] treated the fundamental theorem of algebra in a choiceless
The Mathematical Development Of Set Theory  From Cantor To Cohen
 The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic
, 1996
"... This article is dedicated to Professor Burton Dreben on his coming of age. I owe him particular thanks for his careful reading and numerous suggestions for improvement. My thanks go also to Jose Ruiz and the referee for their helpful comments. Parts of this account were given at the 1995 summer meet ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This article is dedicated to Professor Burton Dreben on his coming of age. I owe him particular thanks for his careful reading and numerous suggestions for improvement. My thanks go also to Jose Ruiz and the referee for their helpful comments. Parts of this account were given at the 1995 summer meeting of the Association for Symbolic Logic at Haifa, in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology logic seminar, and to the Paris Logic Group. The author would like to express his thanks to the various organizers, as well as his gratitude to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for its hospitality during the preparation of this article in the autumn of 1995.
The Mathematical Import Of Zermelo's WellOrdering Theorem
 Bull. Symbolic Logic
, 1997
"... this paper, the seminal results of set theory are woven together in terms of a unifying mathematical motif, one whose transmutations serve to illuminate the historical development of the subject. The motif is foreshadowed in Cantor's diagonal proof, and emerges in the interstices of the inclusion vs ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper, the seminal results of set theory are woven together in terms of a unifying mathematical motif, one whose transmutations serve to illuminate the historical development of the subject. The motif is foreshadowed in Cantor's diagonal proof, and emerges in the interstices of the inclusion vs. membership distinction, a distinction only clarified at the turn of this century, remarkable though this may seem. Russell runs with this distinction, but is quickly caught on the horns of his wellknown paradox, an early expression of our motif. The motif becomes fully manifest through the study of functions f :
Naïve computational type theory
 Proof and SystemReliability, Proceedings of International Summer School Marktoberdorf, July 24 to August 5, 2001, volume 62 of NATO Science Series III
, 2002
"... The basic concepts of type theory are fundamental to computer science, logic and mathematics. Indeed, the language of type theory connects these regions of science. It plays a role in computing and information science akin to that of set theory in pure mathematics. There are many excellent accounts ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The basic concepts of type theory are fundamental to computer science, logic and mathematics. Indeed, the language of type theory connects these regions of science. It plays a role in computing and information science akin to that of set theory in pure mathematics. There are many excellent accounts of the basic ideas of type theory, especially at the interface of computer science and logic — specifically, in the literature of programming languages, semantics, formal methods and automated reasoning. Most of these are very technical, dense with formulas, inference rules, and computation rules. Here we follow the example of the mathematician Paul Halmos, who in 1960 wrote a 104page book called Naïve Set Theory intended to make the subject accessible to practicing mathematicians. His book served many generations well. This article follows the spirit of Halmos ’ book and introduces type theory without recourse to precise axioms and inference rules, and with a minimum of formalism. I start by paraphrasing the preface to Halmos ’ book. The sections of this article follow his chapters closely. Every computer scientist agrees that every computer scientist must know some type theory; the disagreement begins in trying to decide how much is some. This article contains my partial answer to that question. The purpose of the article is to tell the beginning student of advanced computer science the basic type theoretic facts of life, and to do so with a minimum of philosophical discourse and logical formalism. The point throughout is that of a prospective computer scientist eager to study programming languages, or database systems, or computational complexity theory, or distributed systems or information discovery. In type theory, “naïve ” and “formal ” are contrasting words. The present treatment might best be described as informal type theory from a naïve point of view. The concepts are very general and very abstract; therefore they may
Every PolynomialTime 1Degree Collapses iff P = PSPACE
, 1996
"... A set A is mreducible (or Karpreducible) to B iff there is a polynomialtime computable function f such that, for all x, x 2 A () f(x) 2 B. Two sets are: ffl 1equivalent iff each is mreducible to the other by oneone reductions; ffl pinvertible equivalent iff each is mreducible to the othe ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A set A is mreducible (or Karpreducible) to B iff there is a polynomialtime computable function f such that, for all x, x 2 A () f(x) 2 B. Two sets are: ffl 1equivalent iff each is mreducible to the other by oneone reductions; ffl pinvertible equivalent iff each is mreducible to the other by oneone, polynomialtime invertible reductions; and ffl pisomorphic iff there is an mreduction from one set to the other that is oneone, onto, and polynomialtime invertible. In this paper we show the following characterization. Theorem The following are equivalent: (a) P = PSPACE. (b) Every two 1equivalent sets are pisomorphic. (c) Every two pinvertible equivalent sets are pisomorphic. 2 1. Overview If A is mreducible to B, we usually interpret this to mean that A is computationally no more difficult than B, since a procedure for computing B is easily converted into a procedure for computing A of comparable complexity. In fact, this interpretation is supported by muc...
Is the Continuum Hypothesis a definite mathematical problem?
"... [t]he analysis of the phrase “how many ” unambiguously leads to a definite meaning for the question [“How many different sets of integers do their exist?”]: the problem is to find out which one of the א’s is the number of points of a straight line … Cantor, after having proved that this number is gr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
[t]he analysis of the phrase “how many ” unambiguously leads to a definite meaning for the question [“How many different sets of integers do their exist?”]: the problem is to find out which one of the א’s is the number of points of a straight line … Cantor, after having proved that this number is greater than א0, conjectured that it is א1. An equivalent proposition is this: any infinite subset of the continuum has the power either of the set of integers or of the whole continuum. This is Cantor’s continuum hypothesis. … But, although Cantor’s set theory has now had a development of more than sixty years and the [continuum] problem is evidently of great importance for it, nothing has been proved so far relative to the question of what the power of the continuum is or whether its subsets satisfy the condition just stated, except that … it is true for a certain infinitesimal fraction of these subsets, [namely] the analytic sets. Not even an upper bound, however high, can be assigned for the power of the continuum. It is undecided whether this number is regular or singular, accessible or inaccessible, and (except for König’s negative result) what its character of cofinality is. Gödel 1947, 516517 [in Gödel 1990, 178]
How Gödel transformed set theory
 Notices AMS
, 2006
"... the constructible universe L, established the relative consistency of the Axiom of Choice and the Continuum Hypothesis. More broadly, he secured the cumulative hierarchy view of the universe of sets and ensured the ascendancy of firstorder logic as the framework for set theory. Gödel thereby transf ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
the constructible universe L, established the relative consistency of the Axiom of Choice and the Continuum Hypothesis. More broadly, he secured the cumulative hierarchy view of the universe of sets and ensured the ascendancy of firstorder logic as the framework for set theory. Gödel thereby transformed set theory and launched it with structured subject matter and specific methods of proof as a distinctive field of mathematics. What follows is a survey of prior developments in set theory and logic intended to set the stage, an account of how Gödel marshaled the ideas and constructions to formulate L and establish his results, and a description of subsequent developments in set theory that resonated with his speculations. The survey trots out in quick succession the groundbreaking work at the beginning of a young subject. Numbers, Types, and WellOrdering Set theory was born on that day in December 1873 when Georg Cantor (1845–1918) established that the continuum is not countable: There is no bijection between the natural numbers N ={0, 1, 2, 3,...} and the real numbers R, since for any (countable) sequence of reals one can specify nested intervals so that any real in the intersection will not be in the sequence. Cantor soon investigated ways to define bijections between sets
Paradoxes in Göttingen
"... In 1903 Russell’s paradox came over the mathematical world with a double stroke. Bertrand Russell himself published it under the heading “The Contradiction” in chapter 10 of his Principles of Mathematics (Russell 1903). Almost at the same time Gottlob Frege (1848–1925) referred to Russell’s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In 1903 Russell’s paradox came over the mathematical world with a double stroke. Bertrand Russell himself published it under the heading “The Contradiction” in chapter 10 of his Principles of Mathematics (Russell 1903). Almost at the same time Gottlob Frege (1848–1925) referred to Russell’s