|
Yuk! I hate those management jargon words like �final products�. However, since people use them in questioning what we do, we�d better deal with them, like it or not.
What is the final product of any branch of pure mathematics? Do, for example, set theorists like Hugh Woodin, working with extremely high�level abstractions, have a final product? If the questioner means �something that has applications in the real world�, then it seems totally unreasonable to expect constructive analysis to justify itself by the production of such a final product when that justification is not required of classical pure mathematics. If pushed, however, I would say that the final product of all pure mathematics, constructive and nonconstructive, is a body of results, proofs and techniques that contribute to the higher levels of human culture and that may, (as history shows) frequently will, have significant applications in the future. |
