>>14312093No it's not.
>>14311149 asks whether there is a "better proof" because he believes that somehow the proof is not constructive, so an explicit construction would be "better". But the statement to prove is a negation, so the introduction of the hypothesis to derive a contradiction is literally the normal form of the proof, and in particular it is perfectly valid constructively. There is no "better" proof because it's the shortest one, where "short" is defined in terms of cuts in your favorite (reasonable) deduction system.
A "detour" proof by contradiction, by contrast, would be proving an existential statement by first assuming that such an object doesn't exist. Doing so destroys the constructive content of the proof in general, except for weak fragments of classical logic (see e.g. the so-called Friedmanns trick for formula).
Despite you calling me a pseud, I am a literal expert on that shit, anon.
