2
$\begingroup$

Let $a, b, c \in \mathbb R$ such that $a \le b \le c$. Let $S$ be some set and $f, g : [a, c] \to S$ be functions. As a follow up to When can a function defined on $[a, b] \cup [b, c]$ be constructively extended to a function defined on $[a, c]$?, when does $$\forall x \in [a,b] \cup [b,c]. f(x) = g(x)$$ imply that $f = g$?


If $S = \mathbb R$, it is true.
Proof: Let $x \in [a,c]$. Assume that $f(x)$ does not equal $g(x)$. Assume $x < b$. Thus $x \in [a,b]$, implying $f(x) = g(x)$, a contradiction. Thus $b \le x$, implying $x \in [b,c]$, implying $f(x) = g(x)$, a contradiction. Thus $f(x)$ does not not equal $g(x)$. Since $\mathbb R$ has stable equality, $f(x)$ equals $g(x)$. $\square$

This of course applies for any $S \subseteq \mathbb R$ as well. In fact, this proof works for any $S$ with stable equality.

On the other hand, there are examples where the property is constructively unprovable.
Proof: Let $o$ be any object, and consider $$S = \{\{o : y \in [a, b] \cup [b, c]\} : y \in [a,c]\}$$ $$f(x) = \{o : x \in [a,b] \cup [b,c]\}$$ $$g(x) = \{o : b \in [a,b] \cup [b,c]\} = \{o\}$$

Then for all $x \in [a,b] \cup [b,c]$, we have $f(x) = \{o\} = g(x)$. But $f = g$ implies that for any $x \in [a,c]$ we have $o \in \{o : x \in [a,b] \cup [b,c]\}$, implying $x \in [a,b] \cup [b,c]$. Thus $[a,c] = [a,b] \cup [b,c]$, implying the analytic LLPO is provable. But the analytic LLPO is constructively taboo, and thus $f = g$ is unprovable. $\square$

This of course also applies to any superset of $S$, such as $\mathcal P(\{o\})$. (This example was inspired by Gro-Tsen's answer.)

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't your proof answer your question: it's equivalent to LLPO in the general case? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 28 at 2:04
  • $\begingroup$ @FrançoisG.Dorais in the general case, but like the previous question it's about what special cases in which it is provable. Mostly, what values of $S$ make it provable (my first proof shows that $S = \mathbb R$ works even without LLPO). $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 28 at 2:07
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The proof for $\mathbb{R}$ holds for any $\neg\neg$-separated set, which is quite a wide range of sets - it contains all metric spaces, is closed under dependent products, closed under subsets, as you mentioned, etc. $\endgroup$
    – aws
    Commented Jun 28 at 9:12

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .