/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11083578
wtf is going on here

Maybe.

>>11083682
Looks like he is just formalizing the syntax of our number system.

>autistic playtime with pointless abstraction

Math was a mistake

I like real numbers

>>11084444
GO AWAY REALS

>>11084444
Wilburgers btfo

A woodworker carries a carpenter square with legs of equal length L.How much distance is between the tips of each leg in terms of L. (What is he size of the hypotenuse?)

Wildebergers literally can't even respond to this.

>>11083578
>>11084072
>formalizing the syntax of our number system
Wow. I bet nobody has done that a thousand times before without thinking up a gay retarded name like Vexels.

>>11084519
Why should he respond to it? Why is this "distance" so important? It's not. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that such distances always exist. Please, consider using exact algebraic measures like quadrance instead. It is much more useful and always guaranteed to exist.

>>11084526
>Why is this "distance" so important? It's not
I am engineer who wants to affix a length of steel wire to connect the two points. How much length do I need?
(If you cannot imagine a practical scenario where this type of problem arises, then just give up on STEM)

>>11084528
You APPROXIMATE the answer then dumbass. Wildberger has no problem with analytic APPROXIMATE answers for applications.

>>11084519
Suppose five angels are dancing on the head of a pin. What music-of-the-spheres are they dancing to?
^^^ this is what you sound like

>>11084533

>>11084534
>You APPROXIMATE the answer then dumbass
Why are you insulting me? I'm asking in ernest. How do I solve this problem rigorously?

>>11084539
Why do you worry so much about rigour if you were an engineer trying to figure out how much wire you need?

>>11084535
Can you sincerely not imagine my scenario, or are you pretending to be dense?

>>11084540
Because wildeberger is yelling at me that this length does not exist, but my purpose DEPENDS on me connecting these two points with wire. So, how much wire do I need?

>>11084547
your hypotenuse is, by pythagoras, sqrt(2L^2), which is to be understood only as a FORMAL SYMBOL. You then apply an ALGORITHMIC method like the Babylonian method to approximate it. Capish?

>>11084554
I think I'm starting to understand (even if I think all of this formalism is unnecessary). So I'm assuming you believe that L*sqrt(2) is not actually a number and that we can only approximate the symbol (whatever the nature of the symbol is, if it is not a number).
I'm sure you will agree that L*sqrt(2) is approx. 1.414*L, which is close enough to the amount of wire I need to solve my practical problem. My question is: why can you not just define the symbol L*sqrt(2) to be EQUAL to the limit of whatever algorithm we are using to approximate it? Then it can be a number in the literal sense.

>>11084525
>projecting that much jealousy
Sad!

>>11084561
>why can you not just define the symbol L*sqrt(2) to be EQUAL to the limit of whatever algorithm we are using to approximate it?
Sure you can. You can even define 1-1+1-1...= 1/2 or 1+2+4+8+... = -1 if you want (I do), as long as you remember that it's just your personal notational convention, and don't go around assuming automatic and universal agreement with your choices.

>>11084526
>>11084534
>>11084535
>Simple problem is proposed
>Retard realizes his edgy "math" is complete shit
>Starts screeching nonsense

Hold up, he was always screeching nonsense.

>>11083578
Is this the Terry Davis of mathematics ?

I am an engineer who wants to build a grain silo from sheet metal. It will have a circular cross-section, be 10 meters tall, and 5 meters in diameter. The roof will be made of wood.
Q: How many square meters of sheet metal do I need for the sides?

>wildbergers don't know how to solve this

>>11085075
he doesn't have a problem with approximation

>>11085099
Okay...so how many square meters and why?

>>11085100
no idea

>>11085103
damn, that's a shame. this is a very simple and commonly encountered problem!

>>11084072
>while referencing the number system itself

Is he a moron?

>>11084526
>>11084535
>Simple and legitimate problem is posed
>Can't even respond without resorting to insults and obfuscating the question
This is what cognitive dissonance looks like

>>11085165
The semantics of the number referenced by the symbol "1" can be considered valid under any base, so it's not really an issue here.

>>11085574
Why doesn’t he use base twelve if he’s such a revolutionary? Everyone knows base 10 is shite because of its factorization.

i enjoyed that mental masturebation session too

I have a mass M of radioactive substance. This mass is decaying at a rate of change proportional to the mass that is still left at any given point in time. That is: dM/dt = -kM where k is a constant I can measure, units for k is 1/second.
Q: If I start with a mass M0 at time t=0, how much mass do I have at t=1000 seconds in terms of M0 and k?

>this very elementary example completely throws the wildberger for a loop

>>11085742
Let me guess, because Wilberger can’t use ‘e’ right?

>>11085766
I don't know. Can he? How does the Wildeberger tackle this very common problem from chemistry, physics, and engineering?

>>11085768
Same way he tackles your mom’s ass. In a very based and redpilled manner

>>11085822
kekd and rekt

>>11085055
>>11084528
>>11084539
>>11084547
>>11084561
Calculators and CAS use iterative algorithms to approach an answer. In the real world, you cannot have exactly pi units of anything. It's going to be some terminating sum of rationals. Wildberger is completely justified in the discretization argument. Whether or not the numbers "exist" in the real world is completely up to you. For example, you could play devil's advocate and say NO numbers exist in the real world, and it would simply be a matter of philosophy to determine.
TL;DR arguing over it is pointless

>>11086271
So how would I go about finding the area of flooring needed for a circular room? What is the algorithm?

>>11086277
Sure! You can first use one of the many algorithms to approximate pi (for example, Taylor expansion of inverse sin) to some desired degree of precision. Next, use that approximation in your calculation of the area of flooring. This approximation already happens when you press the pi button on your calculator.

can someone link me the video? it looks interesting

>>11086294
So basically it's the exact same process that engineers already use. What's the point of Wildberger's bitching, again?

>>11086294
>This approximation already happens when you press the pi button on your calculator
whats the point of dumbing down pure math again? Its the only field that has integrity in 2019. Most other fields are infected by shitty logical positivism and empiricism

>>11086326
He is debating over the philosophy of the existence of real numbers. His math focuses on numerical methods under this assumption. He's not bitching about anything, really.
>>11086434
How is math being dumbed down? It's just math under a different set of assumptions

>>11083578
The ultrafinitist crowd is highly incompetent in logic (here, Wildberger is messing up universal quantifiers and "n" is free instead of bound ), with the remarkable exception of Edward Nelson (whose views led to the invention of the "internal set theory" aka formalized non standard analysis).
Nothing of value here.

>>11085075
You wanna build shit you become an engineer. You wanna talk numbers you become a mathematician. Now, with all this said and done you may leave at any time.

>>11087382
Learn to argue and especially write, please.

>>11084561
I'm sorry but what is the """limit""" of this algorithm? The answer you get once you iterate it every second until the heat death of the universe?

>>11087563
English is not my mother language. I hope what I say is still understandable. I'm stating facts sorry. Ultrafinitism is pathetic, look at Doron Zeilberger for instance. He appears cool for sure but his "symbolic constants" is just a clumsy way to avoid quantifiers and an underdeveloped variant of non standard analysis ...

>>11086294
If pi isn't a valid number what does it mean to approximate it?

>>11084444
based

>>11087572
>he thinks limits take infinite time to compute

>>11087681
your english is fine, not a single thing tipped me off as you being a non-native speaker. He's just a retard