[sls]

I am familiar with the constructivist family of ideas. Obviously I agree this a question of philosophy, specifically the philosophy of mathematics. (So not "rather than", since foundations of mathematics is a branch of mathematics.) And because adopting a constructivist approach to mathematics means adopting different ideas about what a mathematical definition _is_ or _can be_, I have to say that it's a bit disingenuous to introduce this context only after engaging in the above discussion.

For example, if someone asks you to explain Euclid's proof of the infinitude of the primes, and you say that Euclid did not provide any such proof and nothing more, I think it's quite disingenuous. It would be more proper to say, from a constructivist view, the argument Euclid made isn't a valid proof, and then either explain the proof in the logical context in which it was made or decline to.

In this case, the point of discussion was separating the definition of multiplication from an algorithm implementing it. It's quite unfair to silently take a position that a mathematical definition without an algorithm isn't valid or meaningful and then on that basis argue that only numerical approximations to transcendentals have meaning.

So many common mathematical concepts such as "the integers" have no meaning in a constructivist approach that it's not sensible to engage in mathematical discussion without establishing that one's fundamental basis of approach varies so widely from the common one.