<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Extensionality, Intensionality, and Brouwer&#8217;s Dictum</title>
	<atom:link href="http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/extensionality-intensionality-and-brouwers-dictum/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/extensionality-intensionality-and-brouwers-dictum/</link>
	<description>Abstract types are existential types.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:10:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: favonia</title>
		<link>http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/extensionality-intensionality-and-brouwers-dictum/#comment-1003</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[favonia]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:39:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/?p=616#comment-1003</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just realized how ambiguous my side note is. :-( My concern is that while the BHK interpretation was definitely inspired by Brouwer&#039;s ideas, he himself might not fully approve of this interpretation (or any kind of formalization).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just realized how ambiguous my side note is. :-( My concern is that while the BHK interpretation was definitely inspired by Brouwer&#8217;s ideas, he himself might not fully approve of this interpretation (or any kind of formalization).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Harper</title>
		<link>http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/extensionality-intensionality-and-brouwers-dictum/#comment-980</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Harper]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/?p=616#comment-980</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, I was just referring to the thing itself, not, for example, its homotopy groups.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I was just referring to the thing itself, not, for example, its homotopy groups.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: favonia</title>
		<link>http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/extensionality-intensionality-and-brouwers-dictum/#comment-975</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[favonia]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/?p=616#comment-975</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Oops I meant &lt;em&gt;non-trivial&lt;/em&gt; structures in even higher dimensions.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops I meant <em>non-trivial</em> structures in even higher dimensions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: favonia</title>
		<link>http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/extensionality-intensionality-and-brouwers-dictum/#comment-974</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[favonia]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:05:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/?p=616#comment-974</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As far as I understand, Brouwer dislikes formalism, but his ideas become known to many people in Heyting&#039;s (or Kolmogorov&#039;s?) formal systems. In addition, fewer CS people pay attention to the underlying philosophies (e.g. intuitionism) but most CS people are good at manipulating certain formal systems (e.g. some programming languages). Perhaps that&#039;s the source of confusion. As you pointed out, the CH correspondence is about forms.

As a side note, I think the B in BHK is more honorific for his position in philosophy of mathematics.

A minor point: $latex S^2$ has structures in even higher dimensions, which might not fit into the three-dimensional type theory.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As far as I understand, Brouwer dislikes formalism, but his ideas become known to many people in Heyting&#8217;s (or Kolmogorov&#8217;s?) formal systems. In addition, fewer CS people pay attention to the underlying philosophies (e.g. intuitionism) but most CS people are good at manipulating certain formal systems (e.g. some programming languages). Perhaps that&#8217;s the source of confusion. As you pointed out, the CH correspondence is about forms.</p>
<p>As a side note, I think the B in BHK is more honorific for his position in philosophy of mathematics.</p>
<p>A minor point: <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5E2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=333333&amp;s=0' alt='S^2' title='S^2' class='latex' /> has structures in even higher dimensions, which might not fit into the three-dimensional type theory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Harper</title>
		<link>http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/extensionality-intensionality-and-brouwers-dictum/#comment-973</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Harper]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/?p=616#comment-973</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Fan Theorem is a theorem of extensional type theory.  Constable and Bickford use it to prove a new completeness theorem for intuitionistic first-order logic.  They point out that the Fan Theorem is inconsistent with Church&#039;s Law in the presence of extensionality, so this is another (pragmatic) argument against Church&#039;s Law.

I&#039;m not expert on this topic, but I like to think of free choice sequences in terms of processes.  It&#039;s a stream whose generator is inaccessible to you, coming from an independent process.  You&#039;re required to reason in such a way that you impose no assumptions about how that process generates its outputs.  I find it fascinating that Brouwer used this as his conception of the continuum.  This contrasts with &quot;recursive analysis&quot; which represents reals as Cauchy sequences given by a Turing machine index.  It&#039;s not very intuitionistic in that it is self-consciously computable, whereas the beauty of intuitionism is that you just &quot;do math&quot; in such a way that a computable interpretation is always available.

Update: I misinterpreted the Constable and Bickford paper.  Their result is conditional on the Fan &quot;Theorem&quot;, and Th. Coquand pointed out to me that FT is not provable in ETT, contrary to what I said above.  Apologies to all.  (Perhaps it should be called the Fan Principle or somesuch when used in contexts in which it is not a theorem.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Fan Theorem is a theorem of extensional type theory.  Constable and Bickford use it to prove a new completeness theorem for intuitionistic first-order logic.  They point out that the Fan Theorem is inconsistent with Church&#8217;s Law in the presence of extensionality, so this is another (pragmatic) argument against Church&#8217;s Law.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not expert on this topic, but I like to think of free choice sequences in terms of processes.  It&#8217;s a stream whose generator is inaccessible to you, coming from an independent process.  You&#8217;re required to reason in such a way that you impose no assumptions about how that process generates its outputs.  I find it fascinating that Brouwer used this as his conception of the continuum.  This contrasts with &#8220;recursive analysis&#8221; which represents reals as Cauchy sequences given by a Turing machine index.  It&#8217;s not very intuitionistic in that it is self-consciously computable, whereas the beauty of intuitionism is that you just &#8220;do math&#8221; in such a way that a computable interpretation is always available.</p>
<p>Update: I misinterpreted the Constable and Bickford paper.  Their result is conditional on the Fan &#8220;Theorem&#8221;, and Th. Coquand pointed out to me that FT is not provable in ETT, contrary to what I said above.  Apologies to all.  (Perhaps it should be called the Fan Principle or somesuch when used in contexts in which it is not a theorem.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: neelkrishnaswami</title>
		<link>http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/extensionality-intensionality-and-brouwers-dictum/#comment-972</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[neelkrishnaswami]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:05:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/?p=616#comment-972</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Bob, 

It&#039;s worth noting that Brouwer was motivated to invent intuitionism out of his distaste for the idea that the continuum is a set (i.e., the natural numbers come out of the &quot;first act&quot; of intuitionism, and the continuum comes from the &quot;second act&quot;). In HTT this has a very cute formalization: the interval is a higher inductive type with two points and a declared path between them, and so is trivially not an h-set!

But it&#039;s unclear to me whether this is sufficient to capture his thinking. 

1. What is the status of the fan theorem? I don&#039;t know enough about HTT to guess what properties like compactness look like in this setting. 

2. He also posited free choice sequences as part of intuitionistic analysis, and they are &lt;em&gt;weird&lt;/em&gt;. They look like streams, but they aren&#039;t, since (a) there is no rule to produce them, but (b) streams necessarily have such a rule (since they are all constructed from an unfold).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Bob, </p>
<p>It&#8217;s worth noting that Brouwer was motivated to invent intuitionism out of his distaste for the idea that the continuum is a set (i.e., the natural numbers come out of the &#8220;first act&#8221; of intuitionism, and the continuum comes from the &#8220;second act&#8221;). In HTT this has a very cute formalization: the interval is a higher inductive type with two points and a declared path between them, and so is trivially not an h-set!</p>
<p>But it&#8217;s unclear to me whether this is sufficient to capture his thinking. </p>
<p>1. What is the status of the fan theorem? I don&#8217;t know enough about HTT to guess what properties like compactness look like in this setting. </p>
<p>2. He also posited free choice sequences as part of intuitionistic analysis, and they are <em>weird</em>. They look like streams, but they aren&#8217;t, since (a) there is no rule to produce them, but (b) streams necessarily have such a rule (since they are all constructed from an unfold).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Shulman</title>
		<link>http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/extensionality-intensionality-and-brouwers-dictum/#comment-971</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Shulman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 06:41:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/?p=616#comment-971</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hear hear!  The misguided emphasis on &quot;isomorphism&quot; between propositions and types confused me for a long time.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hear hear!  The misguided emphasis on &#8220;isomorphism&#8221; between propositions and types confused me for a long time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
