Timeline for Heyting's Intuitionist PC
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2013 at 16:42 | comment | added | J Marcos | Apparently Hackstaff (check page 10 of his book) uses different symbols for "material implication", "strict implication", "intuitionistic implication" and something he calls "strong implication". I currently don't have access to Ch.6 of the book, where the Intuitionistic System is introduced; it would seem inadvisable, at any rate, to use strict implication instead of intuitionistic implication in that formulation. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 17:18 | comment | added | Nik Weaver | I wouldn't say he had to use three different symbols, but the symbol for implication certainly has different interpretations in classical, modal, and intuitionistic logic. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 16:57 | comment | added | Jacques Carette | Yes, I should have done that - edited to include a link. So Halleck should have used 3 different symbols for implication? | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 16:50 | comment | added | Nik Weaver | Okay, first, it would have helped if you had linked to that page, second, this is little more than a typo. In intuitionistic logic the implication is neither material nor strict, it is intuitionistic. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 14:48 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | He mentions it in the explanation of the ASCII symbols here home.utah.edu/~nahaj/logic/structures/axioms/index.html . I haven’t got the slightest idea why is he using different implication symbols in the two equivalent axiom systems for intuitionistic logic, which at any rate has only one implication connective. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 14:38 | history | answered | Nik Weaver | CC BY-SA 3.0 |