Re: Constructivists and existence proofs
From: Timothy Little (tim-via-n.i.net_at_little-possums.net)
Date: 01/18/05
- Next message: David McAnally: "Re: True = [ proven | provable ]"
- Previous message: Bozza: "Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests"
- In reply to: Herman Jurjus: "Re: Constructivists and existence proofs"
- Next in thread: William Elliot: "Re: Constructivists and existence proofs"
- Reply: William Elliot: "Re: Constructivists and existence proofs"
- Reply: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Constructivists and existence proofs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 18 Jan 2005 10:51:32 GMT
Herman Jurjus wrote:
> Aren't you confusing constructivism with intuitionism?
I don't have my books here to check, but I was pretty sure that the
terms are, or possibly have been (they're not very recent books),
widely used synonymously. Where I've seen a distinction, it has been
that intuitionism was considered to be a particular form of
constructivism. I haven't seen intuitionism used as a term for
something outside of constructivism, until perhaps now.
As I said in my original post on the subject, it seems that different
people draw the boundaries for the various areas in different ways.
As far as I'm concerned, it's just "People's Front of Judea" vs
"Judean People's Front".
- Tim
- Next message: David McAnally: "Re: True = [ proven | provable ]"
- Previous message: Bozza: "Re: Am I thick?--- Aptitude Tests"
- In reply to: Herman Jurjus: "Re: Constructivists and existence proofs"
- Next in thread: William Elliot: "Re: Constructivists and existence proofs"
- Reply: William Elliot: "Re: Constructivists and existence proofs"
- Reply: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Constructivists and existence proofs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|