In this paper I wish to show that we can give a statement of a restricted form of Gleason's Theorem that is classically equivalent to the standard formulation, but that avoids the counterexample that Hellman gives in "Gleason's Theorem is not Constructively Provable".

When Bishop published Foundations of Constructive Analysis he showed that it was possible to do ordinary analysis within a constructive framework. Bishop's reasons for doing his mathematics constructively are explicitly philosophical. In this paper, I will expound, examine, and amplify his philosophical arguments for constructivism in mathematics. In the end, however, I argue that Bishop's philosophical comments cannot be rounded out into an adequate philosophy of constructive mathematics.