3 ms·
Constructivists don't accept that you've named an integer. They would say: an integer is any member of the smallest constructive set that contains 0 and one mor
by pavpanchekha 11y ago
Constructivists don't accept that you've named an integer. They would say: an integer is any member of the smallest constructive set that contains 0 and one more than any member of that set. Since the set is a constructive set, if you have anything you claim to be an integer, you must be able to either prove that it is 0 or one more than an integer. The number you named isn't zero, so presumably it must be more than some integer ("one less than the number you named"). But if I then ask you whether that number is one more than an integer, and then the same about that one, and so on, at some point you will be unable to answer me. Since you can't provide the evidence that qualifies something as an integer, there's no reason for me to think it is an integer.
- ScottBurson 11y agoI see. The difference, then, between that situation and the situation where I provide a real number named as the sum of an infinite series is that in the latter case I may be able to provide also the modulus of convergence, thus proving that the number is a constructive real number [0]. This is different from a situation where I have a number defined non-constructively and no series is known that converges on the number. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28mathematics%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28mathematics%...