> i'm a lapsed physicist/astronomer that's been interested in intuitionist and constructivist ideas for a long time. yet whenever i ask mathematicians about the

> i'm a lapsed physicist/astronomer that's been interested in intuitionist and constructivist ideas for a long time. yet whenever i ask mathematicians about them i am treated much the same way as i treat people who ask me about new age hippy crap. Somehow I suspect the problem is not "the mathematical community doesn't like constructivism", because e.g. watching MathOverflow it seems to come up a lot, and it apparently has all these connections to computability and to category theory (though I wouldn't know anything about that). > i am as uninformed about maths as astrologers are about physics. and i'll readily admit my enthusiasm is driven largely by a reaction to banach-tarski. but i don't understand why mathematicians are, in general, so confident in being dismissive. See, given this, if you're being treated as if you're talking nonsense, I'm inclined to suspect that you actually are. There's a long history of people abusing half-understood mathematical ideas (see: the incompleteness theorems), so you may want to check that you actually know what you're talking about. Also, while Banach-Tarski is nonconstructive, banishing choice is, IIRC, enough to get rid of it; I don't think ditching classical logic is necessary there.