@David #2: Well, that depends on the constructivist. Certainly this is an attitude that one can take, that assuming excluded middle exhibits sloppy thinking about the nature of the infinite, with some of the results being unsalvageably wrong, some being correct but requiring a different proof, and some (perhaps the most interesting) being fixable by a more precise statement, passage to an approximation, or a shift of context (such as to locales).

]]>I've wanted to create topological property and uniform property for a while but haven't had the time. There are other grey links that should redirect to them, such as topologically equivalent metric. These are classical terms in the theory of metric spaces (which the current text doesn't really get at) that are easily explained by reference to category theory, so we really should talk about them.

]]>I see that Wikipedia has both “topological property” and “uniform property” as stand-alone entries. Just to ungray the links, I’ll create $n$Lab stubs with a pointer to those.

]]>It seems to me desirable to create an entry on “___ property”, whether topological or uniform or something broader in scope, with precise formalized content if possible.

]]>Sounds reasonable.

Also it says there:

Ironically, classical? epsilontic analysis is not rigorous enough for constructive mathematics,

Is it rigour that constructivists complain about, or is it more a challenge to the meanings of concepts and constructions adopted by classical mathematics?

]]>I was un-graying some links at *epsilontic analysis*. Among the titles of non-existing entries that are still being requested is

“classical analysis”

“topological property”.

Is it likely/desireable that we will have entries with these titles? Maybe we should change these links to point to “analysis” and to “topology” instead?

]]>