> On 8 Feb., 19:41, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >> You miss the point as ever -- you are suggesting that >> intuitionists were bullied into making a claim that Hilbert et al >> did *not* accept, viz: > > They were forced to assert that subcountability in constructivism is > not in contradiction with uncountability in matheology.
Which makes no sense in classical mathematics.
Furthermore, that some subcountable sets cannot be effectively enumerated (in constructive terms, are not countable) is provable constructively. You yourself have accepted that, for example, there is no (finitely describable) set containing all (finitely describable) reals, ie that it is subcountable, but not a set (your way of putting it).
> And that > cannot be expected from a healthy mind other than by torture or ban > from profession.
That Brouwer stuck to his position, on this point as well as others, simply shows that he could follow through the logic of his own underlying principles.