Mathematische Semesterberichte

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 57–72 | Cite as

Kronecker’s density theorem and irrational numbers in constructive reverse mathematics

Mathematik in der Forschung

Abstract

To prove Kronecker’s density theorem in Bishop-style constructive analysis one needs to define an irrational number as a real number that is bounded away from each rational number. In fact, once one understands “irrational” merely as “not rational”, then the theorem becomes equivalent to Markov’s principle. To see this we undertake a systematic classification, in the vein of constructive reverse mathematics, of logical combinations of “rational” and “irrational” as predicates of real numbers.

Mathematics subject classification (2000)

03F60 11J71 11J72 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aczel, P.: The type theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory. In: Macintyre, A., Pacholski, L., Paris, J. (eds.) Logic Colloquium ’77, pp. 55–66. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aczel, P.: The type theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory: choice principles. In: Troelstra, A.S., van Dalen, D. (eds.) The L.E.J. Brouwer Centenary Symposium, pp. 1–40. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aczel, P.: The type theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory: inductive definitions. In: Barcan Marcus, R., Dorn, G.J.W., Weingartner, P. (eds.) Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science VII, pp. 17–49. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aczel, P., Rathjen, M.: Notes on Constructive Set Theory. Institut Mittag-Leffler Preprint No. 40 (2000/01)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beeson, M.: Foundations of Constructive Mathematics. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg (1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berger, J.: Constructive equivalents of the uniform continuity theorem. J. UCS 11, 1878–1883 (2005)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berger, J.: The weak König lemma and uniform continuity. J. Symb. Log. 73, 933–939 (2008)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berger, J., Bridges, D.: A bizarre property equivalent to the Π0 1-fan theorem. Log. J. IGPL 14, 867–871 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berger, J., Bridges, D.: A fan-theoretic equivalent of the antithesis of Specker’s theorem. Indag. Math. (N.S.) 18, 195–202 (2007)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berger, J., Bridges, D.: The anti-Specker property, a Heine-Borel property, and uniform continuity. Arch. Math. Logic 46, 583–592 (2008)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berger, J., Bridges, D., Schuster, P.: The fan theorem and unique existence of maxima. J. Symb. Log. 71, 713–720 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berger, J., Ishihara, H.: Brouwer’s fan theorem and unique existence in constructive analysis. Math. Log. Quart. 51, 369–373 (2005)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berger, J., Schuster, P.: Classifying Dini’s theorem. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 47, 253–262 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bishop, E.: Foundations of Constructive Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York (1967)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bishop, E., Bridges, D.: Constructive Analysis. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg (1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bridges, D.: Constructive mathematics: a foundation for computable analysis. Theor. Comput. Sci. 219, 95–109 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bridges, D.: A weak constructive sequential compactness property and the fan theorem. Log. J. IGPL 13, 151–158 (2005)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bridges, D., Richman, F.: Varieties of Constructive Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bridges, D., Richman, F., Schuster, P.: A weak countable choice principle. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 128, 2749–2752 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bridges, D., Schuster, P.: A simple constructive proof of Kronecker’s density theorem. Elem. Math. 61, 152–154 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bridges, D., V^it~a, L.: Techniques of Constructive Analysis. Springer, New York (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Dalen, D.: Logic and Structure, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    David, R., Nour, K., Raffalli, C.: Introduction ‘a la logique. Théorie de la démonstration, 2nd ed. Dunod, Paris (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Diener, H., Loeb, I.: Sequences of real functions on [0,1] in constructive reverse mathematics. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 157, 50–61 (2009)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hardy, G.H., Wright, E.M.: An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers, 4th edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1960)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hensel, K. (ed.): Leopold Kroneckers Werke, Bd. III, Halbbd. I. Teubner, Leipzig (1899), and Chelsea Publ. Co., New York (1968)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heyting, A.: Die formalen Regeln der intuitionistischen Logik, pp. 42–56. Sitz. ber. Preuß. Akad. Wiss. Berlin Phys.-Math. Kl. (1930)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heyting, A.: Intuitionism. An Introduction. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1956)MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ishihara, H.: An omniscience principle, the König lemma and the Hahn-Banach theorem. Z. Math. Logik Grundlag. Math. 36, 237–240 (1990)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ishihara, H.: Informal constructive reverse mathematics. S~urikaisekikenky~usho K~oky~uroku 1381, 108–117 (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ishihara, H.: Constructive reverse mathematics: compactness properties. In: Crosilla, L., Schuster, P. (eds.) From Sets and Types to Topology and Analysis, Oxford Logic Guides 48, pp. 245–267. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ishihara, H.: Reverse mathematics in Bishop’s constructive mathematics. Philos. Sci., Cahier Spécial 6, 43–59 (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ishihara, H., Mines, R.: Various continuity properties in constructive analysis. In: Schuster, P., Berger, U., Osswald, H. (eds.) Reuniting the Antipodes. Constructive and Nonstandard Views of the Continuum. Proceedings 1999 Venice Symposion, Synthese Library 306, pp. 103–110. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ishihara, H., Schuster, P.: Compactness under constructive scrutiny. Math. Log. Q. 50, 540–550 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Khalouani, M., Labhalla, S., Lombardi, H.: Étude constructive de problèmes de topologie pour les réels irrationels. Math. Log. Quart. 45, 257–288 (1999)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kronecker, L.: Näherungsweise ganzzahlige Auflösung linearer Gleichungen. Monatsber. Königl. Preuß. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1179–1193 and 1271–1299 (1884)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Loeb, I.: Equivalents of the (weak) fan theorem. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 132, 51–66 (2005)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Loeb, I.: Indecomposability of R and R\{0} in constructive reverse mathematics. Log. J. IGPL 16, 269–273 (2008)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mandelkern, M.: Limited omniscience and the Bolzano–Weierstraß principle. Bull. London Math. Soc. 20, 319–320 (1988)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mandelkern, M.: Constructive irrational space. Manus. Math. 60, 397–406 (1988)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mines, R., Ruitenburg, W., Richman, F.: A Course in Constructive Algebra. Springer, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rathjen, M.: Choice principles in constructive and classical set theories. In: Chatzidakis, Z., Koepke, P., Pohlers, W. (eds.) Logic Colloquium ’02. Proceedings, Münster, 2002. Lect. Notes Logic 27, pp. 299–326. Assoc. Symbol. Logic, La Jolla (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Richman, F.: Intuitionism as generalization. Philos. Math. 5(3), 124–128 (1990)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Richman, F.: The fundamental theorem of algebra: a constructive development without choice. Pacific J. Math. 196, 213–230 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Richman, F.: Constructive mathematics without choice. In: Schuster, P., Berger, U., Osswald, H. (eds.) Reuniting the Antipodes. Constructive and Nonstandard Views of the Continuum, Proceedings 1999 Venice Symposion, Synthese Library 306, pp. 199–205. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Richman, F.: Real numbers and other completions. Math. Log. Quart. 54, 98–108 (2008)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schuster, P.M.: A constructive look at generalised Cauchy reals. Math. Log. Quart. 46, 125–134 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schuster, P.: Countable choice as a questionable uniformity principle. Philos. Math. 12(3), 106–134 (2004)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schuster, P.: Logisch zwingende Teilprinzipien von ZFC. Log. Anal. (N.S.) 48, 301–310 (2005)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schuster, P.: What is continuity, constructively? J. UCS 11, 2076–2085 (2005)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schuster, P.: Unique solutions. Math. Log. Quart. 52, 534–539 (2006). Corrigendum: Math. Log. Quart. 53, 214 (2007)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schuster, P., Schwichtenberg, H.: Constructive solutions of continuous equations. In: Link, G. (ed.) One Hundred Years of Russell’s Paradox. International Conference in Logic and Philosophy. München, Germany, June 2–5, 2001, De Gruyter Series in Logic and Its Applications 6, pp. 227–245. De Gruyter, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Simpson, S.G.: Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Specker, E.: Nicht konstruktiv beweisbare Sätze der Analysis. J. Symbol. Log. 14, 145–158 (1949)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Taschner, R.J.: Eine Ungleichung von van der Corput und Kemperman. Monatsh. Math. 91, 139–152 (1981)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Troelstra, A.S., van Dalen, D.: Constructivism in Mathematics. Two volumes. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Troelstra, A.S., Schwichtenberg, H.: Basic Proof Theory, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Veldman, W.: Brouwer’s fan theorem as an axiom and as a contrast to Kleene’s alternative, Preprint. Radboud University, Nijmegen, 2005Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information ScienceJapan Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyIshikawaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Pure MathematicsUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations