Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Therefore, unrestricted choice functions in constructive mathematics generate a contradiction with its foundational logical commitments.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Restricted choice functions (dependent products) are compatible with constructivism and handle most mathematical practice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The contradiction claim conflates unrestricted classical choice with any use of choice; constructive choice principles exist consistently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Intuitionistic type theory incorporates choice without generating contradictions, suggesting the problem is overstated.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Constructive mathematics requires computational witnesses for existence claims, but unrestricted choice provides non-computable selections.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The axiom of choice implies excluded middle in intuitionistic logic, directly contradicting constructivism's rejection of classical principles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Unrestricted choice over infinite sets violates the finite Church-Turing thesis that grounds constructive computation.
?
How convincing is this?
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.