[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brouwer
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errett_Bishop
'Sparse' would be an understatement & poor old Errett got such wonderfully backhanded reviews as:
> "Even those who are not willing to accept Bishop's basic philosophy must be impressed with the great analytical power displayed in his work."
and
> Bishop's historical commentary is "more vigorous than accurate".
Algebra and number theory are both heavily reliant on modern mathematical thinking. Abstract algebra is practically the defining example of it.
How does one create Mathematica and Maple without modern mathematical thinking? Indeed, formal logic is rather closely involved in computing generally.
How does a precollege mathematics system that is based on a 19th century style of mathematics pay more attention to 19th century style mathematics?
I find your confident dismissal of modern mathematics to be vexing and oddly misaimed.
Although we've invented a number of algorithmic methods to find bugs in software, the long-term trend is to find "better axioms" to define the program against, which reduce both the code size and complexity - that's the goal otherwise known as "programming language design." We don't want people to code in 19th century fashion, because it sucks.