I'm glad I haven't seen that then. But conversely it does annoy me to see classical mathematicians dogmatically claim as true statements that depend on their ph

I'm glad I haven't seen that then. But conversely it does annoy me to see classical mathematicians dogmatically claim as true statements that depend on their philosophy. And that I have seen a lot of. As for the specific complaint, once you have Constructivism, Banach Tarski falls apart (even in versions with the axiom of choice). So if you don't like the weirdness, there is no need to accept it. (But you won't get advanced degrees in math unless you can at least temporarily pretend to accept it. Zorn's lemma is just too widely used.) But can we agree to both dislike people who argue that 0.999... is not 1?