@article{7/2/131.loeb,
author = {Loeb, Iris},
title = {Questioning Constructive Reverse Mathematics},
journal = {Constructivist Foundations},
volume = {7},
number = {2},
pages = {131-140},
year = {2012},
URL = {http://constructivist.info/7/2/131.loeb},
abstract = {Context: It is often suggested that the methodology of the programme of Constructive Reverse Mathematics (CRM) can be sufficiently clarified by a thorough understanding of Brouwer’s intuitionism, Bishop’s constructive mathematics, and classical Reverse Mathematics. In this paper, the correctness of this suggestion is questioned. Method: We consider the notion of a mathematical programme in order to compare these schools of mathematics in respect of their methodologies. Results: Brouwer’s intuitionism, Bishop’s constructive mathematics, and classical Reverse Mathematics are historical influences upon the origin and development of CRM, but do not give a full “methodological explanation” for it. Implications: Discussion on the methodological issues concerning CRM is needed. Constructivist content: It is shown that the characterisation and comparison of varieties of constructive mathematics should include methodological aspects (as understood from their practices).}
}