Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A 'lawless' sequence is by definition not constructible t... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The term 'irrational number' should be extended to include lawless and pseudo-irrationals

    A 'lawless' sequence is by definition not constructible through any specifiable procedure, making it mathematically unintelligible on constructivist grounds.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Constructivism requires all mathematical objects to be built from explicit operations; lawless sequences lack any constructive specification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a sequence cannot be algorithmically generated or described finitely, it cannot be known or verified by any mathematical agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mathematical intelligibility requires that objects be surveyable through proof; lawless sequences resist all such demonstrations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Lawless sequences are definable via quantification over infinite choice functions, which constructivism permits as valid mathematical objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Unintelligibility and non-constructibility are distinct: classical mathematics understands uncountable sets without constructive procedures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Constructivism itself must countenance infinitary objects (like the continuum); lawless sequences fit naturally within this framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Proof of definition segments1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Constructivism itself must countenance infinitary objects (like the continuum); ...Constructivism requires all mathematical objects to be built from explicit opera...If a sequence cannot be algorithmically generated or described finitely, it cann...Lawless sequences are definable via quantification over infinite choice function...
    +3 moreShow less
    Mathematical intelligibility requires that objects be surveyable through proof; ...The term 'irrational number' should be extended to include lawless and pseudo-ir...Unintelligibility and non-constructibility are distinct: classical mathematics u...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit