3 ms·
The PDF itself seems to say otherwise: "Note that the proof is not constructive: it does not give a method to actually find the representation of p as a sum of
by dsp1234 10y ago
The PDF itself seems to say otherwise:
"Note that the proof is not constructive: it does not give a method to actually find the representation of p as a sum of two squares"
- Chinjut 10y agoThis is the terminology distinction fmap is noting with "We really don't have a good terminology for distinguishing between efficient constructive proofs (those corresponding to efficient algorithms) and inefficient ones...". The PDF calls the proof non-constructive in that it does not provide an efficient algorithm; however, fmap calls it constructive in that it does provide an inefficient algorithm.