/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12701437
>Analysis doesn't even work without choice.
it does if you don't use "real" "numbers".

>>12619893
This is Casey, not Norman.

>>12506497
>where f(x) is given by some formula (in the abstract sense, not necessarily a literal, arithmetic formula)
Interesting. And what "abstract" formulas are allowed in the definition of f?

>>12501817
> Infinitely small equals nothing
> Galileo's paradox
> Some infinities are bigger than others
> Infinity is not a number
Infinity was a mistake.

Where were you when you realised the reals are schizoshit?

>>12473872
t. faggot

>you are just using a different axiom system
Don't you realize the whole point of these axiom systems? Look at the history of set theory and the axiomatic approach to mathematics. The whole reason mathematicians needed it is because nobody understood what the fuck they were doing when they were spouting about the completed infinite sets, the real numbers. Rudin even has a whole video about how set theory came about in an attempt to hide the ambiguities involved in real analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBcWRZMP6xs
The infinitard cope is so strong that they genuinely thought basing the whole subject on a completely undefined notion of a "set" was a good idea and logically sound mathematics.
The same with different kinds of logics. Intuitionism, constructivism etc. all came about because of incredulity in each other's approach to the completed infinite.
If you ground your mathematics in reality, all of these issues completely disappear. All of the different logic systems converge to one actual logic based in reality, the questions become definite questions corresponding to states of being in actual reality, there is no longer the need to believe in some axiomatic dogma like axioms of set theory, you can pick whatever axiomatic system you want and actually PROVE using logic that the system is consistent, but why would you need to, when it's already clear what you're talking about since your math is actually GROUNDED in reality.
Do you think anyone would open Wildberger's book on trigonometry and have a question about what kind of axiomatic system he's using? There's no need to, because it's already clear what he's talking about in the book. The propositions he states doesn't ask you to do infinite amount of work or consider some sorts of unimaginable, indescribable numbers like you see in analysis. They're about rational numbers, which you can write down and calculate with.
(1/2)

>>12451780
>Among mathematics and science YouTubers, who are the most based?
Norman Wildberger, a.k.a. Wild Burger, a.k.a. Wild Egg.
https://www.youtube.com/user/njwildberger

>>12434192
the definition should be changed to anything above the natural numbers

Anything which contradicts him cannot call itself science.

Why does literally no one challenge the ZFC status quo nowadays?

I used to laugh at him as a crank retard but after learning more mathematics and set theory I realized he was right about everything.
Nobody is able to refute him.

>>11907249

why does this man trigger this general so hard?

ngl his videos are pretty comfy

>the sum of an infinite amount of things is equal to one thing
S = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009..... = 1

90% of of bread crumbs + 9% of bread crumbs + 0.9% of bread crumbs +.... = loaf of bread with finite volume

Yeah, I'm done with tbis shit. FUCK YOUR "MATH".

>>11215854
>do we care about the real numbers
No

>>11086327
>circle

>>11031699
It's real, but modern math theory is full of inconsistencies and is pretty much outdated.

>>11029835
/thread

>>11028436
Yes

>>11025618

Fear not anon. Our savior has come.

>Repeat to infinity