[FOM] Re: Constructive analysis

[Matt Insall]

Ayan Mahalanobis writes:

As I understand it (again correct me if I am wrong) BISH is more like 
doing classical mathematics constructively and I sometime wonder why would 
a constructivist be interested in that. The fundamental reason of doing 
constructive mathematics is meaning as I understood it which is a product 
of dissatisfaction from classical math. Then to embrace it as a guideline 
is self-defeating to me.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I view this as a scientific project, in which we are trying to determine 
what is true.  Thus, some researchers may do constructive mathematics 
due to a philosophical conviction about its worth or aesthetic value, 
and others may do classical mathematics with constructivist methods, 
to demonstrate the applicability of the constructivist methods to 
that subject.  To some, the scientific question regarding a particular 
theorem T of classical mathematics may be 

``Can constructivist methods prove T?''  

Of course, the answer may be ``yes'', and the answer may be ``no''.  
This approach to the problem is, to some extent, philosophically 
neutral, or noncommittal.