/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10228658
>muh constructive maths
>muh incapacity to grasp field theory and at least accept the algebraic closure of the rationals so I work with quadrance
It's some sort of mental problem and you should give up on understanding it.

>>10228658
1, 2, 3, ..., verybig

>>10228689
Wtf is this? So the naturals are finite?

>>10228692
well they're certainly not infinite we can be sure about that! Who knows if they're finite though? No one has counted them all yet.

>>10228700
he has no problem with the natural numbers emerging from a process that doesn't end, but he's not ok with manipulating the set of natural numbers as if it's an individual, definable object

>>10228658
He doesnt believe in the axiom of choice, basically thinks there are fallacies within infinite set theory. In my opinion he has a good point, but he doesn’t articulate his point and comes off as a finitist.

How smart is Wildberger? Is he smarter than an average math phd? or masters? or bachelors?

>>10230483
He is a finitist you brainlet. For finite sets AC is a theorem so there is no need for it.

Just watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WabHm1QWVCA

>>10228675
>>muh incapacity to grasp field theory and at least accept the algebraic closure of the rationals so I work with quadrance
He has no problem with these objects as purely algebraic constructions, brainlet. The issue is extremely pedantic and nitpicky at a level that most people aren't even aware the issues are a thing.

>>10230716
>last example
>let's assume infinity
>now let's run an infinite process until it finishes
>see? nonsense comes out!

>infinite process
>finishes

Is he just being flippant because it's a "debate", or is he really this stupid?

>>10228658

people who are academically succesful, generally feel empty and like failures if they dont get any recognition because they lack the genius to actually contribute to new knowledge

he is one of these cases , basically, he is overcompensating his lack of contributions to any field by going full retard

>>10231788

>>10231705
his point is that people treat infinite processes as if they're completed

>>10233142
who? freshmen?

>>10230716
>this number will become bigger and bigger, and eventually it will overwhelm our compooter

>>10231788
Meh in old age if I cant solve any open problem, might as well come back to the basic ones to reinvent some wheels.

>>10233159
no, professional mathematicians

>>10233169
yeah, that's how it works

>>10228658
He doesn't believe in infinite sets, the axiom of choice, nor the fact that you can extract a meaningful result from infinite processes. For the last two in particular, he believes that all current definitions of the elementary operations uses them. For the first, he opts out of using the sets N, Z, Q, and R for Nat, Int, Rat, and Real, respectively where they're to be understood to not be sets and just a notational convenience. He has videos up where he explains what he thinks the problems are with the different definitions of the reals. He's also introducing a new series on "Algebraic Calculus" where he somehow finds a way to tip-toe over all of these.

>>10230632
I believe he's a PhD and professor at some university, so you can draw your own conclusions.

>>10228658
>Does he basically just hate analysts?
Pretty kuch

>>10233228
Eh, there's a lot of reasons to hate analysts and their shit, but he goes beyond that.

>>10230745
It's not pedantic at all. His argument is the following:

>infinity :(

>>10228658

>>10233245
>dum dum detected