The Fan Theorem, its strong negation, and the determinacy of games

Pub Date : 2024-06-06 DOI:10.1007/s00153-024-00930-9
Wim Veldman
{"title":"The Fan Theorem, its strong negation, and the determinacy of games","authors":"Wim Veldman","doi":"10.1007/s00153-024-00930-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the context of a weak formal theory called Basic Intuitionistic Mathematics <span>\\(\\textsf{BIM}\\)</span>, we study Brouwer’s <i>Fan Theorem</i> and a strong negation of the Fan Theorem, <i>Kleene’s Alternative (to the Fan Theorem)</i>. We prove that the Fan Theorem is equivalent to <i>contrapositions</i> of a number of intuitionistically accepted axioms of countable choice and that Kleene’s Alternative is equivalent to <i>strong negations</i> of these statements. We discuss finite and infinite games and introduce a constructively useful notion of <i>determinacy</i>. We prove that the Fan Theorem is equivalent to the <i>Intuitionistic Determinacy Theorem</i>. This theorem says that every subset of Cantor space <span>\\(2^\\omega \\)</span> is, in our constructively meaningful sense, determinate. Kleene’s Alternative is equivalent to a strong negation of a special case of this theorem. We also consider a <i>uniform intermediate value theorem</i> and a <i>compactness theorem for classical propositional logic</i>. The Fan Theorem is equivalent to each of these theorems and Kleene’s Alternative is equivalent to strong negations of them. We end with a note on <i>‘stronger’</i> Fan Theorems. The paper is a sequel to Veldman (Arch Math Logic 53:621–693, 2014).</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00153-024-00930-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the context of a weak formal theory called Basic Intuitionistic Mathematics \(\textsf{BIM}\), we study Brouwer’s Fan Theorem and a strong negation of the Fan Theorem, Kleene’s Alternative (to the Fan Theorem). We prove that the Fan Theorem is equivalent to contrapositions of a number of intuitionistically accepted axioms of countable choice and that Kleene’s Alternative is equivalent to strong negations of these statements. We discuss finite and infinite games and introduce a constructively useful notion of determinacy. We prove that the Fan Theorem is equivalent to the Intuitionistic Determinacy Theorem. This theorem says that every subset of Cantor space \(2^\omega \) is, in our constructively meaningful sense, determinate. Kleene’s Alternative is equivalent to a strong negation of a special case of this theorem. We also consider a uniform intermediate value theorem and a compactness theorem for classical propositional logic. The Fan Theorem is equivalent to each of these theorems and Kleene’s Alternative is equivalent to strong negations of them. We end with a note on ‘stronger’ Fan Theorems. The paper is a sequel to Veldman (Arch Math Logic 53:621–693, 2014).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
范式定理、其强否定和博弈的确定性
在被称为 "基本直观数学"(Basic Intuitionistic Mathematics)的弱形式理论的背景下,我们研究了布劳威尔扇形定理(Brouwer's Fan Theorem)和扇形定理的强否定--克莱因替代(扇形定理)。我们证明扇形定理等价于一些直觉上公认的可数选择公理的contrapositions,而Kleene's Alternative等价于这些陈述的强否定。我们讨论了有限博弈和无限博弈,并引入了一个建设性的有用的确定性概念。我们证明了范式定理等同于直觉确定性定理。这个定理说,康托尔空间(2^\omega \)的每一个子集,在我们这个有建构意义的意义上,都是确定的。克莱因替代法等同于对该定理一个特例的强否定。我们还考虑了经典命题逻辑的统一中间值定理和紧凑性定理。扇形定理等价于这些定理,而克莱因替代定理等价于它们的强否定。最后,我们对 "更强 "的范式定理做一个说明。本文是 Veldman(Arch Math Logic 53:621-693, 2014)的续篇。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1