<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Constructive Reverse Mathematics · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1804.05495/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1804.05495/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Constructive Reverse Mathematics — mentioned by nyrikki</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44407419</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1804.05495:44407419</guid><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2025 19:25:33 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;To try and help people digging into this, the following helped me. Two lenses for trying to understand this are potentially Chastain&amp;#x27;s limits on output of a lisp program being more complex than the program itself [1] or Markov&amp;#x27;s proof that you can&amp;#x27;t classify manifolds in d&amp;gt;= 4. If you try the latter and need/want to figure out how the Russian school is so different this is helpful [2] IMHO the former gives an intuition why, and the latter explains why IMHO. In ZFC, C actually ends up implying PEM, which is why using constructionism as a form of reverse math helped it click for me . This is…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1804.05495/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.LO</category></item></channel></rss>
