This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
The the introductory remark about showing the consistency and coherence of IL is interesting since nowadays, I take it, people consider Glivenko's theorem to show that classical logic can be made sense of from an intuitionistic point of view. Compare this with the usual modal translations, where the box is interpreted as a provability operator, which allow classicists to make sense of intuitionistic logic. It might be worth adding remarks along these lines to the intro., especially by someone with a strong background in the history and philosophy of IL. Takers? Nortexoid (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Mark van Atten's SEP article (linked from article); it is very good. I'm proposing merging this article into the Godel-Gentzen tranlsation one, and moving both to Double-negation translation: the topics are clearly best treated together. — Charles Stewart(talk)09:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference. The merge sounds like a good idea since the topics are so closely related. At least a "See also" section pointing to these related articles should be added here. Nortexoid (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
