[FOM] Classical/Constructive Arithmetic
Timothy Y. Chow
tchow at alum.mit.edu
Sat Mar 25 15:29:58 EST 2006
Harvey Friedman wrote:
> On 3/23/06 12:15 AM, "Bill Taylor" <W.Taylor at math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> > So this is to say: "For all sized boards, Hex has a 1st-player win"
> > has a nice constructive proof?
> You must mean: for all finite sized boards. Yes, using induction. The
> induction is even with respect to bounded formulas. Note that, also,
> bounded inductions are sufficient to prove the decidability of bounded
I still think that confusion is being caused in this discussion by two
different senses of the word "constructive."
The strategy-stealing argument is "nonconstructive" in the sense that it
does not yield a polynomial-time algorithm for the first player to win at
Hex. This says nothing about whether the proof is "constructive" in the
sense that Harvey Friedman was originally asking about.
The confusion comes partly from the oft-heard informal remark that the
strategy-stealing argument "gives you no idea what the winning strategy
is." This sure sounds "nonconstructive." In fact, however, if you are
not concerned with *computational efficiency*, there is a trivial method
of finding the winning strategy, namely brute-force search. Lack of an
*efficient* algorithm should not be confused with the lack of any
algorithm at all, as in (for example) the problem of computing the rank of
an elliptic curve over Q.
More information about the FOM