Abstract
However, the implication from 1) to 2) is equivalent to the principle of Dependent Choices (as the reader can show for himself) and cannot be proved in ZF. A relation < on X is called well-founded if any of these statements holds. Intuitionistically, the 3 statements are far from equivalent (hence, in formalizing an intuitionistic notion of well-foundedness, care is needed). Notion 1) is, intuitionistically, too weak to be of any use; whereas notion 2) is far too strong (by a well-known argument, as soon as an inhabited relation < satisfies 2), classical logic is forced on us). Hence we focus on notion 3), which is also usually taken as part of an axiomatization of intuitionistic set theory. The behaviour of well-founded induction for primitive recursive well-founded relations on the natural numbers in formal arithmetic, has been studied by many people. Classical results in the area are:
Submitted Version (
Free)
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
