Of course, but the semantics of such theorems are different, which may have implications if you want to apply your theory to a constructive domain. Infinity makes my skin crawl, but that is a non-issue as long as nobody uses it to describe the universe that contains my skin. :)
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't think that Mathematica cannot be used to prove theorems, and I somehow suspect it's computable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank you!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, that is all largely uncomputable stuff, which means that it is not the language that reality is written in.
-
Turing showed that a computational reality need not be "written" in any language (a language is a post hoc human interpretation) and so, by Occam's razor, it isn't. For Turing, there was no "true" math, only useful math (he rejected both classicism and intuitionism as "correct")
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
http://math.andrej.com/2008/08/13/intuitionistic-mathematics-for-physics/ … for mobile friendly intro on intuitionistic math
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.