meta user
network profile
| bio | website | lri.fr/~rouxcody |
|---|---|---|
| location | Orsay, France | |
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 2 months |
| seen | yesterday | |
| stats | profile views | 5 |
I am currently a postdoc in theoretical computer science, my main fields of interest revolve around logic and type theory, termination checking, satisfiability modulo theories.
|
Mar 28 |
comment |
Why do we negate the imaginary part when conjugating? Well of course it's possible to elaborate on this notion of duality: the conjugation operator can be seen as the extension a map which sends roots of the polynomial $X^2 + 1$ to roots of the same, and it is the only such map other than the identity. The study of these maps is the main object of Galois theory. |
|
Mar 7 |
comment |
Could I be using proof by contradiction too much? You have made a common mistake: Cantor's diagonal argument is a proof of a negative statement, and as such is perfectly valid proof in the intuitionistic framework. Additionaly, the Axiom of infinity is not rejected by all intuitionists, though the schism between intuitionist mathematics and classical mathematics is more significant in situations where that axiom holds. |
|
Nov 12 |
comment |
Decomposing $\mathbb{N}$ Hint: split $\mathbb{N}$ into two infinite disjoint sets, one of which will be all of $N_1$, the other which will contain most of the elements of each $N_i$, $i\geq 2$... |
|
Oct 18 |
comment |
Are the “proofs by contradiction” weaker than other proofs? I want to add that constructive proofs have computational content: if you prove the existence of an object, it is possible to perform a computation and obtain (a representation of) that object. In this sense it seems reasonable to reject non-constructive proofs of existence, as they give absolutely no method of obtaining a description of the asserted object. |
|
May 25 |
comment |
A Formal and Precise treatment of Simplification? Just googling "rewriting" might be a bit too general. You might want to check out "Shostak theories" which are logical theories in which one has a natural notion of "canonical form" and of "solution of an equation". The field of rewriting is so incredibly vast, however, that you might start with the Baader & Nipkow reference to get a grip on the different subfields. |
|
Mar 27 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Mar 27 |
awarded | Teacher |
|
Mar 26 |
answered | A Formal and Precise treatment of Simplification? |
