Why should I switch to Python? - Infinity of Primes

Cameron Laird claird at starbase.neosoft.com
Tue Apr 4 21:46:35 CEST 2000


In article <38EA369C.26A1C25 at math.okstate.edu>,
David C. Ullrich <ullrich at math.okstate.edu> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>    There's nothing non-constructive about the traditional
>proof of the infinitude of the sequence of primes - given
>a sequence of primes it _constructs_ a prime not on the
>list. (Of course it doesn't actually return infinitely many
			.
			.
			.
The constructivist sect most familiar to me says, sure,
"it constructs a prime not on the list", but that's sub-
ordinated in the proof to a *reductio ad absurdum*, which
is inherently non-constructive.  That's part of the pro-
gram:  rewriting such formulations in purely
constructive language.  Or am I myself speaking entirely
in anachronisms?  Has modern constructivism somehow come
to rely on the Excluded Middle (something like the Roman
Church and monotheletism)?
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird at NeoSoft.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html



More information about the Python-list mailing list