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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Classical tautologies like double negation elimination have no canonical computational term, undermining the claim's scope beyond intuitionistic systems.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Classical tautologies have well-defined computational content via continuation-passing style and call-cc operators in typed languages.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lack of canonical intuitionistic proof doesn't undermine classical validity—classical and intuitionistic systems have different proof standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many classical results (excluded middle, choice) are computationally meaningful in classical type theories like cubical or observational type theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The Curry-Howard correspondence shows classical tautologies lack direct computational witnesses that intuitionistic proofs possess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Double negation elimination requires excluded middle, which needs non-constructive choice principles absent from intuitionistic logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a principle has no canonical term, its truth cannot be computationally verified, limiting its scope to formal systems only.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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