I don't think we do actually, the distinction here clearly isn't in the non-classical logic sense, given the topics. And while there are many books on "Classical Analysis" it is not clear to me we should group these topics together because they are are not in these texts. Thenub314 (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a nice umbrella term, although the list as its stands seems to be OR. Felix QW has PRODded it, although I winder if draftification might be better until we figure out what to do with the idea. I'd be prepared to steward the article through AfC. — Charles Stewart(talk)12:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd be happy to take back the PROD. I wanted to tidy up the page, as I couldn't figure any sensible grouping which included p-adic analysis and intuitionistic analysis but excluded non-standard analysis. So I did some research on the concept, and I only found one pertinent reference. That is a philosophy paper by Harrison on Zeno's paradoxes, in which the author explicitly states that we he calls non-classical analysis is usually called synthetic differential geometry (p. 279 there).
So I became convinced that the term isn't actually in general use, and since I couldn't figure out the inclusion criteria used here either, I thought it appropriate to PROD it. Felix QW (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mess of OR (I don't suppose there is a reliable source that gives the same definition as in the lead) and false claims (all widely accepted constructive analysis can be formalised in ZFC). We're better off not having it in articlespace as it stands. I just think it isn't a terrible skeleton on which to build a defensible article. — Charles Stewart(talk)00:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
