I see a giant misconception coming. The point of nonstandard analysis is that it makes properties of limits, derivatives, and so forth much easier to prove than can be done with the standard definitions. They eliminate the necessity of arguments involving epsilon and delta. So it would be a mistake to imagine that the nonstandard theories are only useful for people who are exploring nonstandard analysis. They should be valuable to anybody who wants to prove anything in analysis. It would be a shame to see them buried somewhere. Larry
- [isabelle-dev] NEWS Mark A. Hillebrand
- [isabelle-dev] NEWS Makarius
- [isabelle-dev] NEWS Gerwin Klein
- [isabelle-dev] HOL vs. HOL-Complex Florian Haftmann
- [isabelle-dev] HOL vs. HOL-Complex Florian Haftmann
- [isabelle-dev] HOL vs. HOL-Complex Brian Huffman
- [isabelle-dev] HOL vs. HOL-Comple... Tobias Nipkow
- [isabelle-dev] HOL vs. HOL-Co... Brian Huffman
- [isabelle-dev] HOL vs. HOL-Co... Tobias Nipkow
- [isabelle-dev] HOL vs. HOL-Co... Makarius
- [isabelle-dev] HOL vs. HOL-Co... Lawrence Paulson
- [isabelle-dev] HOL vs. HOL-Co... Brian Huffman
- [isabelle-dev] HOL vs. HOL-Co... Makarius
- [isabelle-dev] HOL vs. HOL-Co... Lawrence Paulson
- [isabelle-dev] NEWS Florian Haftmann
- [isabelle-dev] NEWS Amine Chaieb
- [isabelle-dev] NEWS Makarius
- [isabelle-dev] NEWS Tobias Nipkow
- [isabelle-dev] NEWS Michael Nedzelsky
- [isabelle-dev] NEWS Makarius
- [isabelle-dev] NEWS Makarius