Re: NULLs: theoretical problems?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:22:22 -0300
Message-ID: <46d85c11$0$4059$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net>

Jan Hidders wrote:

> On 31 aug, 17:21, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>

>>On Aug 31, 2:13 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 30 aug, 14:08, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>I use a similar notion to def in my own work, but am lacking any
>>>>references for it. You say that it is an established (or at least
>>>>recorded) approach - do you have links to texts, or academic
>>>>references? Or does it have a more formal nomenclature that I could
>>>>search for > my normally leet googling skills are not serving me well.
>>
>>>I'm sorry to say that at the moment I cannot tell you where I got it.
>>>The thing that comes closest is Beeson's logic of partial terms, which
>>>has an explicit definedness operator for terms. But it lacks the idea
>>>of a syntactic restriction that allows you to keep the normal
>>>reasoning rules of FOL.
>>
>>"The Foundations of Constructive Mathematics" is not an easy book to
>>get hold of...

>
> There's a nice short and clear description in:
>
> http://www.iam.unibe.ch/publikationen/techreports/2001/iam-01-005
>
>

>>>Of course, if you really want a formal reference I might consider
>>>writing a small technical report about it. ;-)
>>
>>I think you should make this a priority! Oh, and don't forget to
>>mention me in the acknowledgements as a motivating factor in its
>>generation ;)

>
> Will do. ;-)
>
> -- Jan Hidders

Oh, you publication whores, you! Received on Fri Aug 31 2007 - 13:22:22 CDT