You are repeatedly begging the question so what follows is falsehood. The premise is to reconstruct the intuition behind the parallel postulate. You can look at Euclid's Elements to get a better understanding of constructivism.
I am most certainly not begging the question. I have addressed each of your points directly. I have a pretty good idea of Euclid's elements and the parallel postulate. Constructivism in the philosophy of maths is the idea that it is necessary to find a specific example of something to prove it exists. That's an idea that significantly postdates Euclid.
Comments
You are repeatedly begging the question so what follows is falsehood. The premise is to reconstruct the intuition behind the parallel postulate. You can look at Euclid's Elements to get a better understanding of constructivism.
I am most certainly not begging the question. I have addressed each of your points directly. I have a pretty good idea of Euclid's elements and the parallel postulate. Constructivism in the philosophy of maths is the idea that it is necessary to find a specific example of something to prove it exists. That's an idea that significantly postdates Euclid.
This is simply factually incorrect.