basic constructions:
strong axioms
further
The lesser limited principle of omniscience ($LLPO$) is a principle of omniscience which states that, if the existential quantification of the conjunction of two decidable propositions is false, then one of their separate existential quantifications is false. That is,
or equivalently
If one takes the domains of quantification to be subsingletons, one get de Morgan's law $\neg(p \wedge q) \Rightarrow \neg{p} \vee \neg{q}$ ($DM$), which is weaker than $EM$; conversely, $DM$ implies $LLPO$ (over any domain). Again, Bishop's $LLPO$ takes the domain to be $\mathbb{N}$, giving a principle weaker than $DM$ (and also weaker than $LPO_{\mathbb{N}}$).
Stated set-theoretically, the lesser limited principle of omniscience for $A$ ($LLPO_A$) states that, given functions $f, g\colon A \to \{0,1\}$, if $1 \notin \im f \cap \im g$, then $1 \notin \im f$ or $1 \notin \im g$. So Bishop's $LLPO$ is $LLPO_{\mathbb{N}}$.
In set theory, there are actually two different notions of logic: there is the external predicate logic used to define the set theory itself, and there is the internal predicate logic induced by the set operations on subsingletons and injections. In particular,
An internal proposition is a set $P$ such that for all elements $x \in A$ and $y \in A$, $x = y$.
The internal conjunction of two internal propositions $P$ and $Q$ is the cartesian product $P \times Q$ of $P$ and $Q$.
The internal disjunction of two internal propositions $P$ and $Q$ is the image of the unique function $!_{P \uplus Q}:P \uplus Q \to 1$ from the disjoint union of $P$ and $Q$ to the singleton $\top$.
The internal implication of two internal propositions $P$ and $Q$ is the function set $P \to Q$ between $P$ and $Q$.
The internal negation of an internal proposition $P$ is the function set from $P$ to the empty set
An internal proposition $P$ is a decidable proposition if it comes with a function $\chi_P:P \to 2$ from $P$ to the boolean domain $2$.
An internal predicate on a set $A$ is a set $P$ with injection $i:P \hookrightarrow A$, whose family of propositions indexed by $x \in A$ is represented by the preimages $i^*(x)$.
The internal existential quantifier of an internal predicate $i:P \hookrightarrow A$ is the image of the unique function $!_P:P \to \top$ into the singleton $\top$.
The internal LLPO for a family of sets $(A_z)_{z \in I}$ is the LLPO for each $A_z$ stated in the internal logic of the set theory:
In particular, the internal LLPO for the family of all sets in $U$ is weak excluded middle in $U$.
The internal LLPO, like all internal versions of axioms, are weaker than the external version of LLPO, since while bounded separation implies that one can convert any external predicate $x \in A \vdash P(x)$ on a set $A$ to an internal predicate $\{x \in A \vert P(x)\} \hookrightarrow A$, it is generally not possible to convert an internal predicate to an external predicate without a reflection rule which turns subsingletons in the set theory into propositions in the external logic.
There are various other results that are equivalent to the principles of omniscience. Here are a few:
Let $[0,1]/(0 \sim 1)$ be the quotient of the unit interval that identifies the endpoints, and let $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$ be the quotient ring; both are classically isomorphic to the circle $\mathbb{S}^1$. (Constructively, we take $\mathbb{S}^1$ to be $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$, although $S^1$ can also be constructed as a completion of $[0,1]/(0 \sim 1)$.) Constructively, there is an injection $[0,1]/(0 \sim 1) \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$, which is a bijection if and only if the $LLPO$ holds (for the appropriate kind of real number).
The analytic LLPO for the Cauchy real numbers is equivalent to the LLPO for the natural numbers.
There are various other results that are related to the principles of omniscience. Here are a few:
The limited principle of omniscience $\mathrm{LPO}_\mathbb{N}$ and the weak limited principle of omniscience $\mathrm{WLPO}_\mathbb{N}$ for natural numbers imply $\mathrm{LLPO}_\mathbb{N}$, but not conversely.
In the presence of weak countable choice, there exists a radix expansion in any base (e.g., a decimal expansion or binary expansion) for every Cauchy real number iff $\mathrm{LLPO}_\mathbb{N}$ holds. Without weak countable choice, Lifschitz realizability gives a model in which $\mathrm{LLPO}_\mathbb{N}$ holds but it is not true that there exists a radix expansion in any base for every Cauchy real number. See Swan (2024).
In the presence of countable choice, $\mathrm{LLPO}_\mathbb{N}$ is equivalent to the claim that the rings of radix expansions in any two bases are isomorphic. See Daniel Mehkeri's answer to Feldman (2010).
In the context of dependent type theory, the lesser limited principles of omniscience can be translated in two ways, by interpreting “or” as propositionally truncated (“merely or”) or untruncated (“purely or”). The relationships between the truncated and untruncated LLPO are as follows are:
Untruncated LLPO is equivalent to WLPO (also due to Martin Escardo).
In http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~rathjen/Lifschitz.pdf is a model by Michael Rathjen that separates WLPO from (truncated) LLPO. Similarly, Grossack 24 shows that Johnstone’s topological topos separates WLPO from (truncated) LLPO.
Thus, untruncated LLPO is strictly stronger than truncated LLPO, unlike the case for LPO and WLPO.
Errett Bishop: Foundations of Constructive Analysis, McGraw-Hill (1967)
(in the introduction or chapter 1, I forget)
Hajime Ishihara, Reverse Mathematics in Bishop’s Constructive Mathematics, Philosophia Scientiæ, CS 6 (2006) (doi:10.4000/philosophiascientiae.406, pdf)
David Feldman (2010) on Math.Overflow, Radix notation and toposes
Michael Rathjen, Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and the limited principle of omniscience. [arXiv:1302.3037]
Mike Shulman, Brouwer’s fixed-point theorem in real-cohesive homotopy type theory, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science Vol 28 (6) (2018): 856-941 (arXiv:1509.07584, doi:10.1017/S0960129517000147)
Michael Rathjen, Andrew Swan, Lifschitz Realizability as a Topological Construction. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Volume 85, Issue 4, December 2020, pp. 1342 - 1375. [doi:10.1017/jsl.2021.1, arXiv:1806.10047]
Andrej Bauer, James Hanson, The Countable Reals (arXiv:2404.01256)
Andrew Swan (2024) on Category Theory Zulip, Radix expansions in constructive mathematics
Chris Grossack, Life in Johnstone’s Topological Topos 3 – Bonus Axioms (web)
Last revised on July 27, 2024 at 16:44:06. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.