BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for researchDiscover
Workspaces
Network
Opportunities
Account
Researcher profile
Jaime Gaspar contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.
Trust snapshot
Actions
Identity and collaboration
Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.
Log in to claimDirect collaboration
Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.
Research graph
Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
The Kuroda negative translation translates classical logic only into intuitionistic logic, not into minimal logic. We present eight variants of the Kuroda negative translation that translate classical logic even into minimal logic. The proofs of their soundness theorems are interesting because they illustrate four different methods of proof.
We present a very simple example of a theorem with constructive and non-constructive proofs: the equation c^2 x^2 - (c^2 + c)x + c = 0 has a solution.
Classical logic (the logic of non-constructive mathematics) is stronger than intuitionistic logic (the logic of constructive mathematics). Despite this, there are copies of classical logic in intuitionistic logic. All copies usually found in the literature are the same. This raises the question: is the copy unique? We answer negatively by presenting three different copies.
In this instructional exposition in Portuguese for the popularisation of mathematics, we state and prove the completeness theorem.
We refute the conjecture that all negative translations are intuitionistically equivalent by giving two counterexamples. Then we characterise the negative translations intuitionistically equivalent to the usual ones.
We adapt Streicher and Kohlenbach's proof of the factorization S = KD of the Shoenfield translation S in terms of Krivine's negative translation K and the Gödel functional interpretation D, obtaining a proof of the factorization U = KB of Ferreira's Shoenfield-like bounded functional interpretation U in terms of K and Ferreira and Oliva's bounded functional interpretation B.
In 2007, Terence Tao wrote on his blog an essay about soft analysis, hard analysis and the finitization of soft analysis statements into hard analysis statements. One of his main examples was a quasi-finitization of the infinite pigeonhole principle IPP, arriving at the "finitary" infinite pigeonhole principle FIPP1. That turned out to not be the proper formulation and so we proposed an alternative version FIPP2. Tao himself formulated yet another version FIPP3 in a revised version of his essay. We give a counterexample to FIPP1 and discuss for both of the versions FIPP2 and FIPP3 the faithfulness of their respective finitization of IPP by studying the equivalences IPP <-> FIPP2 and IPP <-> FIPP3 in the context of reverse mathematics. In the process of doing this we also introduce a continuous uniform boundedness principle CUB as a formalization of Tao's notion of a correspondence principle and study the strength of this principle and various restrictions thereof in terms of reverse mathematics, i.e., in terms of the "big five" subsystems of second order arithmetic.