>>330
I would love to read some of your sources and discuss this problem with you. I am a psychologist looking to go into medical psychiatry, and the process of diagnosis is essentially a problem of categorizing behaviors. Often as doctors congregate they will agree upon the patterns of interest, but will greatly disagree as to how to classify these behaviors. I believe that this process is governed by an intuition, a grammar of rules formed by experiences that is not always communicable to others.

So, what is intuitionism, exactly?

>>511
Someone didn't study categorical perception in cognitive psychology class.

It's not about believing in a certain type of logic. What matters is that it is able to produce useful ideas (extrinsic results), which both intuitionistic and first order logics etc. do very well. As far as it being more natural, that could be viewed as a good justification but it still would be silly to say that you are either an intuitionist or not as the latter could be viewed as either an extension or a restriction depending on how you look at it.

It would be foolish to abandon first order logic in favor of intuitionist views, they are both good things.

For a lot of ideas in math there are "Deep" truths, where both sides of the coin are useful and productive things to use a metaphor. Although this kind of math is evidence based, you can't make determinations like "intuitionistic logic is right" or "first order logic is right" as can be done in other fields in the way that we say the sun is yellow or the sky is blue.

>>547

My understanding is that it is a logic where the law of the excluded middle and the double negation principle are disposed of. i/e

--p != p & -(pV-p)

>>552

>>552 Can you recommend any good texts on the theory of intuitionist logic? I have read only some background overviews about it's theory and history, and learned a little of the theory in the context of substructural logics and linguistics. I just want to know what intuitionist logic is really all about.

>>560

Sorry, you're probably better off doing some google searches and finding a book that is good for your background knowledge. If I were to suggest you anything it would just be me googling and posting what I'd buy for myself.

I sometimes think intuitionist logic is cool.

I also think it's unfortunately named, as the name itself draws ire (as you yourself have experienced). Similarly I think Complex/Imaginary was a poor choice in wording.