In restricted areas where there are both classical and constructivist proofs of a result, the latter is often preferable as more informative. Whereas a classical existence proof may merely demonstrate the logical necessity of existence, a constructive existence proof shows how to construct the mathematical object whose existence is asserted. This lends strength to the positive thesis, from a mathematical point of view. However, the negative thesis is much more problematic, since it not only fails to account for the substantial body of non-constructive classical mathematics, but also denies its validity. The constructivists have not demonstrated that there are inescapable problems facing classical mathematics nor that it is incoherent and invalid. Indeed both pure and applied classical mathematics have gone from strength to strength since the constructivist programme was proposed. Therefore, the negative thesis of intuitionism is rejected.
In restricted areas where there are both classical and constructivist proofs of a result, the latter is often preferable as more informative. Whereas a classical existence proof may merely demonstrate the logical necessity of existence, a constructive existence proof shows how to construct the mathematical object whose existence is asserted. This lends strength to the positive thesis, from a mathematical point of view. However, the negative thesis is much more problematic, since it not only fails to account for the substantial body of non-constructive classical mathematics, but also denies its validity. The constructivists have not demonstrated that there are inescapable problems facing classical mathematics nor that it is incoherent and invalid. Indeed both pure and applied classical mathematics have gone from strength to strength since the constructivist programme was proposed. Therefore, the negative thesis of intuitionism is rejected.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
