Reputation
20,933
Top tag
Next privilege 25,000 Rep.
Access to site analytics
Badges
4 52 121
Newest
 Good Answer
Impact
~495k people reached

2d
comment Can we do better than zero padding of FFT?
With all respect to the OP, can someone rewrite the question into more standard mathematical terminology so that we can tell what it is about?
Feb
6
comment What (fun) results in graph theory should undergraduates learn?
This question is not about math research. It belongs to matheducators.stackexchange.com, please move it there.
Feb
4
revised Mapping an arrow from the direct limit of a diagram to the family of arrows from the diagram
added 648 characters in body
Feb
4
comment Order-Perserving Bijection $f:A\to A^*$?
Ok, I edited the question.
Feb
4
revised Order-Perserving Bijection $f:A\to A^*$?
added 8 characters in body
Feb
4
answered Mapping an arrow from the direct limit of a diagram to the family of arrows from the diagram
Feb
4
comment Order-Perserving Bijection $f:A\to A^*$?
Did you mean to write that $A$ is infinite?
Feb
1
awarded  Good Answer
Jan
21
comment What restriction(s) of Goedel's primitive recursive functionals is (are) necessary and sufficient to prove the consistency of $PRA$
To go from probably to certainly I would like to see a proof. As to your other question, it ought to be similar to the reasoning done by Gödel in Dialectica: if there were a term corresponding to a proof of $\bot$ then there would also exist a normal term corresponding to $\bot$, but there isn't one.
Jan
21
comment What restriction(s) of Goedel's primitive recursive functionals is (are) necessary and sufficient to prove the consistency of $PRA$
The proof ordinal of PRA is $\omega^\omega$, so what @Ulrik is suggesting seems about right. That is: if you know that all primitive recursive functions normalize (terminate) then you can (probably) conclude that PRA is consistent.
Jan
21
comment What restriction(s) of Goedel's primitive recursive functionals is (are) necessary and sufficient to prove the consistency of $PRA$
What the OP probably means to say is that strong normalization of System $T$ implies consistency of $PA$. And so the question is how to restrict System $T$ so that strong normalization of the restricted system implies consistency of $PRA$ but is too weak to imply consistency of $PA$.
Jan
21
reviewed Leave Open What restriction(s) of Goedel's primitive recursive functionals is (are) necessary and sufficient to prove the consistency of $PRA$
Jan
19
awarded  Nice Answer
Jan
15
answered Compactness in Bishop's constructive mathematics
Jan
11
awarded  Nice Answer
Dec
30
comment What is… A Grossone?
Thanks! I have trouble finding a "computational" description of Grossones (not a logical theory, not equations, but something resembling a computational model). Would you happen to know of one? After all, the web site is called "infinity computer".
Dec
30
comment Function extensionality: does it make a difference? why would one keep it out of the axioms?
Possibly yes, I read it somewhere in Russell and wasn't careful about the fact that he could have picked it up from Frege.
Dec
29
comment Maximal chains and antichains of statements weaker than AC
A terminological remark: you are describing the Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra of ZF and you are in particular looking at everything above $AC$ in this algebra.
Dec
27
answered What are some important but still unsolved problems in mathematical logic?
Dec
26
comment Algorithmic complexity of formal proof verification?
I yet have to see useful polynomial-time checkable proofs.