Content deleted Content added
Line 77:
:This is a symptom of different people using "constructive" to mean different things. The paper by Kellog, Li, and York really is titled "A Constructive Proof of the Brouwer Fixed-Point Theorem and Computational Results". But they are working in numerical analysis, not in constructive mathematics. So perhaps all that they mean by 'constructive proof' is that their proof can be used to obtain a numerical algorithm to approximate a fixed point. I am not completely sure what they mean by constructive, though, as I look at their paper. They also assume that the map is not only continuous, but twice differentiable. In the sense of many branches of constructive mathematics, it is known that the fixed point theorem implies nonconstructive principles such as LLPO, and so the fixed point theorem is not constructive in the sense of those branches. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 17:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
::Thank you for the answer. It makes it clear.
::Unless I completely not aware of the usual use of "constructive" in mathematics, I guess the best way to describe KLY version of Hirsch's proof is simply write "numerical algorithm" or "computable method", instead of "constructive". Also in the description of Scarf's proof the word "construct" should be replaced by "calculate". [[User:נחי|Nachi]] ([[User talk:נחי|talk]]) 20:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
| |||