Questions tagged [constructive-mathematics]

The term "constructive mathematics" refers to the discipline in mathematics in which one proves the existence of mathematical objects only by presenting a construction that provides such an object. Indirect proofs involving proof by contradiction and law of excluded middle are considered nonconstructive. Constructivism is the philosophical stance that the only "true" mathematics is constructive mathematics.

The term "constructive mathematics" refers to the discipline in mathematics in which one proves the existence of mathematical objects only by presenting a construction that provides such an object. Indirect proofs involving proof by contradiction are considered nonconstructive. Construvtivism is the philosophical stance that the only "true" mathematics as constructive mathematics.

In constructivism, an existence proof is not accepted, unless the object in question is constructed. As an example of a nonconstructive proof, consider the following classical proof of the fact that there are irrational numbers $ a $ and $ b $ such that $ a ^ b $ is rational:

Either $ { \sqrt 2 } ^ { \sqrt 2 } $ is rational, in which case we take $ a = b = \sqrt 2 $; or else $ { \sqrt 2 } ^ { \sqrt 2 } $ is irrational, in which case we take $ a = { \sqrt 2 } ^ { \sqrt 2 } $ and $ b = \sqrt 2 $.

The above argument is nonconstructive, because as it stands, it does not enable us to pinpoint which of the two choices of the pair $ ( a , b ) $ has the required property. An alternative proof for the same theorem which is constructive, goes like:

Take $ a = \sqrt 2 $ and $ b = \log _ 2 9 $.

Also, the law of excluded middle is typically not accepted as an axiom. That's because it can result in nonconstructive reasoning, as the above example illustrates. Therefore classical logic is rejected by constructivists, and instead they use intuitionistic logic, which is essentially classical logic without the law of the excluded middle. There are also mathematical axioms like the axiom of choice rejected by constructivists, as they have nonconstructive consequences.

As some of classical methods are not constructively valid, there are classically valid sentences that don't have constructive proofs. As an example there is no constructive proof for the following sentence:

For every real number $ x $, either $ x < 0 $, $ x = 0 $ or $ x > 0 $.

There is a suitable replacement for this which is constrcutively valid. In many applications this alternative is sufficient, although it's slightly weaker than the classical sentence:

For every real number $ x $ and every positive real number $ \epsilon $, either $ x < 0 $, $ | x | < \epsilon $ or $ x > 0 $.

Constructivism has different varieties, among which the most famous are:

  1. , a formal basis for the theory of intuitionism founded by L. E. J. Brouwer
  2. Recursive constructive mathematics, a.k.a russian construve mathematics, founded by A. A. Markov
  3. Bishop's constructive mathematics, founded by E. Bishop
501 questions
167
votes
10 answers

How far can one get in analysis without leaving $\mathbb{Q}$?

Suppose you're trying to teach analysis to a stubborn algebraist who refuses to acknowledge the existence of any characteristic $0$ field other than $\mathbb{Q}$. How ugly are things going to get for him? The algebraist argues that the real numbers…
89
votes
3 answers

What is "ultrafinitism" and why do people believe it?

I know there's something called "ultrafinitism" which is a very radical form of constructivism that I've heard said means people don't believe that really large integers actually exist. Could someone make this a little bit more precise? Are there…
Noah Snyder
  • 9,445
  • 3
  • 37
  • 58
60
votes
2 answers

What does it take to divide by $2$?

Theorem 1 [ZFC, classical logic]: If $A,B$ are sets such that $\textbf{2}\times A\cong \textbf{2}\times B$, then $A\cong B$. That's because the axiom of choice allows for the definition of cardinality $|A|$ of any set $A$, and for…
Hanno
  • 17,860
  • 2
  • 26
  • 56
57
votes
14 answers

An easy example of a non-constructive proof without an obvious "fix"?

I wanted to give an easy example of a non-constructive proof, or, more precisely, of a proof which states that an object exists, but gives no obvious recipe to create/find it. Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes came to mind, however there is…
46
votes
2 answers

For which $n\in\Bbb N$ can we divide $\{1,2,3,...,3n\}$ into $n$ subsets each with $3$ elements such that in each subset $\{x,y,z\}$ we have $x+y=3z$?

For which $n\in \mathbb{N}$ can we divide the set $\{1,2,3,\ldots,3n\}$ into $n$ subsets each with $3$ elements such that in each subset $\{x,y,z\}$ we have $x+y=3z$? Since $x_i+y_i=3z_i$ for each subset $A_i=\{x_i,y_i,z_i\}$, we have $$4\sum…
45
votes
1 answer

irrationality of $\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}$.

The fact that there exists irrational number $a,b$ such that $a^b$ is rational is proved by the law of excluded middle, but I read somewhere that irrationality of $\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}$ is proved constructively. Do you know the proof?
43
votes
8 answers

Does the existence of a mathematical object imply that it is possible to construct the object?

In mathematics the existence of a mathematical object is often proved by contradiction without showing how to construct the object. Does the existence of the object imply that it is at least possible to construct the object? Or are there…
Kasper
  • 12,734
  • 12
  • 60
  • 110
31
votes
3 answers

Do De Morgan's laws hold in propositional intuitionistic logic?

In Wikipedia page on intuitionistic logic, it is stated that excluded middle and double negation elimination are not axioms. Does this mean that De Morgan's laws, stated $$ \lnot (p \land q) \iff \lnot p \lor \lnot q \\ \lnot (p \lor q) \iff \lnot p…
user2468
30
votes
2 answers

A few questions about intuitionistic mathematics

I have to write a paper on Intuitionism for my Philosophy of Science class and I'm struggling with a few concepts I have encountered in my self-study. The (intuitive) characterization of valid intuitionistic inferences I am familiar with is given by…
26
votes
3 answers

Difference between proof of negation and proof by contradiction

I stumbled across article titled "Proof of negation and proof by contradiction" in which the author differentiates proof by contradiction and proof by negation and denounces an abuse of language that is "bad for mental hygiene". I get that it is…
25
votes
2 answers

Can one prove by contraposition in intuitionistic logic?

I read that contraposition $\neg Q \rightarrow \neg P$ in intuitionistic logic is not generally equivalent to $P \rightarrow Q$. If this is right, in what case can this contraposition logical-equivalence be used in intuitionistic logic?
Materialist
  • 345
  • 3
  • 5
23
votes
5 answers

Why can't you prove the law of the excluded middle in intuitionistic logic (for layman)?

I am learning about the difference between booleans and classical logics in Coq, and why logical propositions are sort of a superset of booleans: Why are logical connectives and booleans separate in Coq? The answer there explains the main reason for…
Lance
  • 3,176
  • 22
  • 44
22
votes
2 answers

What practical proofs work in intuitionistic but not minimal logic?

Intuitionistic logic contains the rule $\bot \rightarrow \phi$ for every $\phi$. In the formulations I have seen this is a separate axiom, and the logic without this axiom(?) is termed "minimal logic". Is this rule required for practical proof…
20
votes
2 answers

Constructive Proof of Kronecker-Weber?

This question is motivated by my attempt at solving Proving $2 ( \cos \frac{4\pi}{19} + \cos \frac{6\pi}{19}+\cos \frac{10\pi}{19} )$ is a root of$ \sqrt{ 4+ \sqrt{ 4 + \sqrt{ 4-x}}}=x$ Consider numbers expressible as exponential sums $$\sum_k a_k…
quanta
  • 12,023
  • 3
  • 45
  • 84
17
votes
3 answers

Minimal difference between classical and intuitionistic sequent calculus

Consider propositional logic with primitive connectives $\{{\to},{\land},{\lor},{\bot}\}$. We view $\neg \varphi$ as an abbreviation of $\varphi\to\bot$ and $\varphi\leftrightarrow\psi$ as an abbreviation of $(\varphi\to\psi)\land(\psi\to\varphi)$,…
hmakholm left over Monica
  • 276,945
  • 22
  • 401
  • 655
1
2 3
33 34