That’s fun. Let’s see, what kind of careers can we envision:

A perverse career in sheaf theory.

A pointless career in topology.

An unbounded career in chain complex theory.

A simple career in group theory

An empty career in set theory. (Nah, then better a career in empty set theory ;-)

Okay, I better stop now.

]]>Goodness, you’re right!

]]>You mean, then, a career in classical or ordinary approximation theory, not a classical career in approximation theory! The latter sounds bizarre to me! Just to underscore this, wouldn’t it sound weird to say “a non-constructive career in approximation theory”, when you mean “a career in non-constructive approximation theory”?

]]>By ‘ordinary’ I meant not focussed on constructive mathematics.

I’ve edited the sentence slightly, but you should add more if you like.

]]>Some very impressive testimony regarding the mathematical (analytic) prowess of Bishop can be found here.

]]>This is for Toby: in the article on Errett Bishop, it is stated, “Before [his interest in constructive mathematics], he had an ordinary career in approximation theory.” This sounds rather odd to me; most accounts I have read have said his career in (for example) function algebras and in several complex variables – not to mention approximation theory – was extraordinary and brilliant. (Quite a few people with no interest in his constructive mathematics hailed him as an authentic genius in these areas.) Would you clarify this, please?

]]>