illusiions

• Mail folder: QED
• Next message: beeson@cats.UCSC.EDU: "Machine Math"
• Previous message: victor yodaiken: "base language"

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 13:24:28 -0400
From: jt@linus.mitre.org
Message-id: <9304201724.AA05106@malabar.mitre.org>
To: qed@mcs.anl.gov
Subject: illusiions
Sender: qed-owner
Precedence: bulk

OK, I agree that illusions are "part of the trade." That is not my
objection.  (Although please find a better expression than illusion.)
However, for a non-constructivist analyst such as myself, it seems
very convoluted to encode everything in an unfamiliar and unintuitive
(for me) logic.  What is the point? To facilitate translatability?  I
don't believe that this is possible in any way which I would find
acceptable. For instance, constructivists typically don't accept the
clasical intermediate value theorem for continuous functions. So a
translation of the classical intermediate value theorem will have no
intuitive content at all. 


Javier