翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Diadelia basifuscipennis ・ Diadelia basifuscomaculata ・ Diadelia betschi ・ Diacme elealis ・ Diacme finitalis ・ Diacme griseicincta ・ Diacme liparalis ・ Diacme mopsalis ・ Diacme oriolalis ・ Diacme phyllisalis ・ Diacme samealis ・ Diacodexis ・ Diacolax ・ Diacolax cucumariae ・ Diaconescu ・ Diaconescu's theorem ・ Diaconești ・ Diaconia ・ Diaconia University of Applied Sciences ・ Diaconicon ・ Diaconis ・ Diaconisia ・ Diaconu ・ Diacope ・ Diacranthera ・ Diacria quadrangle ・ Diacrisia ・ Diacrisia aurapsa ・ Diacrisia echo ・ Diacrisia irene Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Diaconescu's theorem ： ウィキペディア英語版 Diaconescu's theorem In mathematical logic, Diaconescu's theorem, or the Goodman–Myhill theorem, states that the full axiom of choice is sufficient to derive the law of the excluded middle, or restricted forms of it, in constructive set theory. It was discovered in 1975 by Diaconescu〔R. Diaconescu, , Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 51:176-178 (1975)〕 and later by Goodman and Myhill.〔N. D. Goodman and J. Myhill, “Choice Implies Excluded Middle”, Zeitschrift fur Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 24:461 (1978)〕 Already in 1967, Errett Bishop posed the Theorem as an exercise (Problem 2 on page 58 in 〔E. Bishop, "Foundations of constructive analysis", McGraw-Hill (1967)〕). == Proof == For any proposition $P\backslash ,$, we can build the sets : $U\; =\; \backslash$ and : $V\; =\; \backslash .$ These are sets, using the axiom of specification. In classical set theory this would be equivalent to : and similarly for $V\backslash ,$. However, without the law of the excluded middle, these equivalences cannot be proven; in fact the two sets are not even provably finite (in the usual sense of being in bijection with a natural number, though they would be in the Dedekind sense). Assuming the axiom of choice, there exists a choice function for the set $\backslash \backslash ,$; that is, a function $f\backslash ,$ such that : $(\backslash in\; U)\; \backslash wedge\; (\backslash in\; V).\backslash ,$ By the definition of the two sets, this means that : $(=\; 0)\; \backslash vee\; P)\; \backslash wedge\; (=\; 1)\; \backslash vee\; P)\backslash ,$, which implies $f(U)\; \backslash neq\; f(V)\; \backslash vee\; P.$ But since $P\; \backslash to\; (U\; =\; V)$ (by the axiom of extensionality), therefore $P\; \backslash to\; (f(U)\; =\; f(V))\backslash ,$, so : $(f(U)\; \backslash neq\; f(V))\; \backslash to\; \backslash neg\; P.$ Thus $\backslash neg\; P\; \backslash vee\; P.$ As this could be done for any proposition, this completes the proof that the axiom of choice implies the law of the excluded middle. The proof relies on the use of the full separation axiom. In constructive set theories with only the predicative separation, the form of ''P'' will be restricted to sentences with bound quantifiers only, giving only a restricted form of the law of the excluded middle. This restricted form is still not acceptable constructively. In constructive type theory, or in Heyting arithmetic extended with finite types, there is typically no separation at all - subsets of a type are given different treatments. A form of the axiom of choice is a theorem, yet excluded middle is not. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Diaconescu's theorem」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.