On 3/18/2013 1:34 PM, WM wrote: > On 18 Mrz., 18:32, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> On 3/18/2013 6:43 AM, WM wrote: >> >>> On 18 Mrz., 07:26, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> >>>> You turn to an outdated strategy directed to >>>> a situation that no longer exists rather >>>> than do the hard work of grounding your >>>> claims. You do this to say that just >>>> because you do not believe a particular >>>> axiom, >> >>> Wrong. I prove that the axiom is nonsense like the axiom that a >>> triangle with four edges exists. >> >> That would be more forceful if you used the >> term 'trilateral'. > > Then it would be trivial. My example requires a little bit deeper > thought. >> >> Once again. You have *proven* nothing. > > As your foregoing hint shows, you seem to welcome trivialities, but > you seem to be not able to understand more difficult ideas.
So. Markov understands Brouwer.
Markov defines constructive objects.
Markov characterizes the quantifiers of his constructive mathematics to apply whenever an expression corresponding to the *definition* of a constructive object is given.
What I do not understand is how you consider your refusal to provide a similar framework to have merit.