Content deleted Content added
Line 75:
<br>I'm wondering if it's indeed a constructive proof, since Brower's theorem for one dimension is equivalent to [[intermediate value theorem]], which does not admit a constructive proof.
<br>See for example [https://mathoverflow.net/questions/202811/does-the-brouwer-fixed-point-theorem-admit-a-constructive-proof this discussion] in [[MathOverflow]]. [[User:נחי|Nachi]] ([[User talk:נחי|talk]]) 16:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
: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. 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)
| |||