by > Andrej Bauer. I guess Terrence Tao is already past the > question mark "what is material implication"? > > Maybe you can learn about "material implication

by > Andrej Bauer. I guess Terrence Tao is already past the > question mark "what is material implication"? > > Maybe you can learn about "material implication

Awodey and Andrej Bauer demonstrated their childishness for all the world to see on the FOM mailing list, I followed numerous blogs discussing the controversy and downloaded reference

. [Andrej Bauer in "Set theory and model theory", MathOverflow (30 Apr 2010)] > (6) Mathematics doesn't 'predict' anything There is a difference between

>> Andrej Bauer has created a proposal for a new 'Proof assistants' StackExchange site. >>>>> >>>>> http://math.andrej.com/

say even Andrej Bauer did > that. But how do you want to launch a proof assistants > site, I assume for everybody? if you cannot divert > cs theory questions to another stackexchange

: > Andrej Bauer has announce a "series of seminars titled 'Every proof assistant' that would be devoted to all the different proof assistants out there." >

.html Andrej Bauer has some (to me) interesting answers to people looking for unshakable 'foundations' for mathematics: 'When logicians speak of "foundations

hour - Andrej Bauer, 2017 https://vimeo.com/286652934 In what language is DC Proof written. Is it open source? Could it be ported to other languages? Am Mittwoch, 24. April 2019 18

2006 - Andrej Bauer http://math.andrej.com/2006/04/25/konigs-lemma-and-the-kleene-tree/ Am Samstag, 28. Juli 2018 19:11:07 UTC+2 schrieb WM: > Am Samstag, 28. Juli 2018

since the Andrej Bauer's very public condemnation of the FOM mailing list had led to postings all over the internet. Goedel's incompleteness suggests that truth and provability

30 Professor Bauer states > that constructive mathematics is done without > the "law of excluded middle". > > This is precisely what the accompanying paper

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:57:35 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:48:40 PM UTC-7, mitch wrote: > >

Note that for standard sets of reals as defined below, Cantor's first proof of the uncountability

Marshall wrote: > On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:56:48 AM UTC-8, Peter Percival wrote: >>

Basis: Lemma01: Meaning can only be correctly specified within an acyclic directed graph: a) Montague

comment by Andrej Bauer: This is off-topic, but: it makes no sense to claim that "constructivist continuum is countable in ZFC sense". What might be the case is that there

comments by Andrej Bauer: He {{JD Hamkins}} did not say that it is consistent to "postulate in ZFC that undefinable numbers do not exist". What he was saying was that ZFC cannot

? [Andrej Bauer] I think that elements of a set must be distinguishable, as Cantor has put it. [albino] {{I would say that the existence of personal beliefs is a personal belief. And I

Matheology § 269 How to distinguish a decimal representation from a set of all terminating decimal