So if we regard something as only being well defined if we can construct it, does this somehow affect what we think about integrals? The way I understand it, there is absolutely nothing in mathematics that tells you how to actually do an integral. Fundamentally, all we can do is cleverly pull an anti-derivative out of thin air. So it seems like constructivists might take serious issue with an integral. Maybe not in and of itself, but certainly if you actually want to evaluate it.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

It seems like every single physical quantity expressed as an integral, we have absolutely no business knowing. Unless we happen to be clever in that particular case. I'm curious what the standard line of thought here is. Is this something people commonly take issue with?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# What do Constructivists think of Integrals?

Loading...

Similar Threads for Constructivists Integrals |
---|

I How to derive this log related integration formula? |

I An integration Solution |

B I Feel Weird Using Integral Tables |

B Methods of integration: direct and indirect substitution |

A Getting a finite result from a non-converging integral |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**