/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10623005]

Is this lunatic actually right?
Is our understanding of real numbers illogical???

[Anonymous No.10623006]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu-YPJSNFpE

[Anonymous No.10623023]

>>10623005
Look everything he says is correct,I watched his videos on sqrt of 2 and pi videos last night and i agree.
But he doesn't offer a suitable replacement for them,only discusses what other branches of mathematics do with those numbers as if those are correct ones.
Also the problems with numbers he loves to mention in computers are deeply rooted into the architecture adopted 70 years ago namely "Von Neumann architecture",but it is not the only way to build a computer and problems can be addressed.
Not to mention even computer problematic real numbers like floats are getting revision because posits are invented while being more accurate and precise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N05yYbUZMSQ
Bottom line is there is more than one way to skin a cat and he is just pointing this shit out.

[Anonymous No.10623091]

>>10623005
yes, his alzheimer trip is getting old

[Anonymous No.10623096]

>>10623005
>not engineering and career choice
A thread died for this

[Anonymous No.10623107]

>>10623005
He fundamentally misunderstands the idea of infinity. Multiple times I've seen him "DeBuNk" the idea of infinite sequences by first assuming they are actually finite, THEN deriving an absurdity based on that.

His entire position is "I don't like it, REEEE". That said, it's good that someone is exploring finitist alternatives. Knowing more can't hurt.

[Anonymous No.10623111]

>>10623005
Intuitively, I agree. Natural numbers are the only numbers that should exist, and the concept of infinity is absurd and unrealistic.

[Anonymous No.10623117]

>>10623111
>based engineer gets trips equal to his IQ

[Anonymous No.10623127]

>>10623117
>engineer
I'm flattered
Explain how infinity makes sense

[Anonymous No.10623140]

>>10623127
>*shifts the burden of proof*
>nothing personal, kid

Explain how it doesnt

[Anonymous No.10623146]

>>10623140
>burden of proof
lol, never "proven" to exist in the first place, never been observed.

[Anonymous No.10623164]

>>10623111
There are infinite natural numbers.
You also must agree that each subset of natural numbers exists since they all have at most the cardinality of the natural numbers. Cantor showed that the set of all subsets if the naturals is of a larger cardinality than the naturals (I'm pretty sure the same cardinality as the reals but that is pedantic since infinite sequences of numbers 0-9 have that cardinality)
Thus naturals are infinite and from them we can construct cardinalities matching the reals. Do you have a problem with a ZF axoim?

[Anonymous No.10623208]

>>10623164
>There are infinite natural numbers.
"natural" implies they're real, tangible, and observable. What evidence do we have that there is infinite of anything in our universe?

[Anonymous No.10623255]

>>10623146
You cannot prove infinity by definition. You have to imagine why the abstract idea of it is useful for mathematics though, and through that it "exists".

[Anonymous No.10623272]

>>10623208
And axiom "of choice" implies that it should be preferred above other axioms.
Implications don't follow from names, retard.

[Anonymous No.10623273]

>>10623208
You seem to be on the wrong board dude, thisbis more philosophy nonsense. Zermelo-Frankel set theory axioms construct the naturals, that is the mathematical theory most commonly used to construct the naturals. What you are saying about "the univserse" is not relevant to pure math it's pseudoscience; the theory of natural numbers would exist whether or not there were objects in the universe to use them on.

Natural numbers are a mental tool which is applied to our everyday observance however even if the universe had k objects total the number k+1 would still exist.
The theory of ZF has an axiom which allows us to acknowledge the totality of these numbers as a set called the natural numbers. If you find this axiom unreasonable you are largely alone. Math is based on axioms and derivation rules not personal biases. A mathematical object does not cease to exist because you don't like it. You need to show an actual contradiction in the theory if you think it is unreasonable. Arguements about "the universe" are not mathematical arguements they are philosophical ones. For reasons I outlined above the prospect of a finite universe does not keep most people from accepting the totality of the natural numbers, which is infinite by definition of what infinite means (no bijection with a section of naturals or the empty set).

Do you acknowledge the set of natural numbers N?

[Anonymous No.10623275]

>>10623208
I think you are naturally faced with infinity in Zeno's paradoxes

[Anonymous No.10623276]

>>10623208
>the name of something determines its properties

You absolute brainlet

[Anonymous No.10623286]

>>10623208
The name of a set has no bearing on what is in it theoretically. Let N=BLUE, do you now think all natural numbers are blue because they come from the set blue?
Naturalness is not a mathematical concept it is just a historical relic. You don't have the faintest idea how real and rigorous math is done.

[Anonymous No.10623317]

>>10623255
>why the abstract idea of it is useful for mathematics though
I can 100% respect the use of pi and other irrationals in practical, local applications. "Infinity" applied to an open system is perfectly reasonable -- since it will never be reached. In closed systems, however, the concept breaks down completely, because the upper boundary you call "infinite" is now very small, very finite, and has a major influence on your calculations. The inability to accurately predict atomic and molecular spectra is a testamest to this, as is (I presume) the inability to solve the 3-body problem. The ultraviolet catastrophe may be a similar example that actually has been solved, albeit by introduing a fifth-order(!) component minus an exponential. What the hell does that mean in real, tangible terms?
So it begs the question: If irrational numbers are just local approximations, what are their rational interpretations in the greater scheme of things? He criticizes the squareroot of 2; yet squareroots only seem to have meaning when applied to a closed loop - the point circle, or numbers that have already been squared. Who is to say you can even take the squareroot of 2 in the first place? Where are those degrees of freedom coming from?
>t. definitely not a mathfag

[Anonymous No.10623342]

>>10623317
stop

[Anonymous No.10623366]

https://youtu.be/n7H9kwdw498

[Anonymous No.10623585]

>>10623208
ok so list them

[Anonymous No.10623669]

>>10623585
>it’s impossible for the natural numbers to be limited AND for humans on Earth to not know that limit
>therefore there are infinite numbers
I’m not really on either side, but your logic isn’t shit

[Anonymous No.10623678]

>>10623208
>"natural" implies they're real, tangible, and observable
"No"

[Anonymous No.10623685]

he's right

[Anonymous No.10623700]

>>10623685
Is this real? What in the fuck did wild burger mean by this

[Anonymous No.10623720]

>>10623700
hes a literal schizo

[Anonymous No.10623721]

>>10623700
we will only know once we liberate mathematics from the reals

[Anonymous No.10623750]

>>10623005
just noticed he looks kindof like steve martin

[Anonymous No.10623773]

>>10623685
With that kind of logic I'm sure he posts on /sci/

[Anonymous No.10623786]

>>10623721
>>10623121

[Anonymous No.10623941]

>>10623208
>"natural" implies they're real, tangible, and observable. What evidence do we have that there is infinite of anything in our universe?
What the fuck are you talking about? Mathematics aren't defined by the behavior of physical phenomena. It's an abstract system, not some observational science like biology. You can apply mathematics to real world problems but that doesn't mean mathematics are beholden to the arbitrary circumstances of the physical world we live in. No numbers exist in physical reality. The number 5 is an abstract concept that can be referenced as a convenient way to work with patterns in how different objects or events described as "5" in number behave. We can predict what will happen if you have 5 days left in the month or 5 dollars spent on a sandwich through that abstract shortcut as an alternative to going through the trouble of dealing with each case of thing exhibiting fiveness as a brand new problem. But there's no literal 5 entity magically floating above the fingers in my hand or in a pair of chimes sounding a perfect fifth. Trying to force mathematics to conform to real world phenomena misses the entire point of what the system is.

[Anonymous No.10623971]

>>10623005
Depends on your philosophy. If you think you have to be able to compute everything, then yes. If you are okay with abstraction, then no. Either way is valid mathematics.

[Anonymous No.10623973]

>>10623208
Natural is the name we gave them. It doesn't mean anything.

[Anonymous No.10624073]

>>10623973
wow, here comes the FORMALIST to shit up the thread, look everyone it's the FORMALIST, be sure to say hello to the FORMALIST

[Anonymous No.10624081]

>>10624073
ok retard

[Anonymous No.10624486]

>>10624073
>Mathematical McCarthyism
None of the major schools will seriously suggest that the name of a set has any bearing on it's contents mathematically speaking.

[Anonymous No.10624570]

>>10623005
Lol watched his lectures on algebraic topology, wasn't that bad. I liked them to be honest. why lunatic ?

[Anonymous No.10624572]

>>10623366
kek

[Anonymous No.10624582]

The set of real numbers is a model and abstract construct you faggots. It doesn't necessarily corresponds to anything in nature, it may or it may not. But it does make working with math easier. Whether you want to work with real numbers in pure math depends on whether you can get math results from using this set, and it just happens that there's a shitload of math results pertaining to the real number line and related sets.

[Anonymous No.10624637]

>>10623005
I clicked on the ad too.

[Anonymous No.10624659]

>>10623685
This is one case of his slides being completely cryptic without the video. Post the fucking video I want to know what in the FUCK any of that means.

[Anonymous No.10624813]

>>10623208
>"natural" implies they're real, tangible, and observable
Hmm... so what are the consequences of this argument for "real numbers"?

[Anonymous No.10624846]

>>10624659
I watched it, and it wasn't as ludicrous as it seems. Obviously he doesn't believe in irrational numbers. Basically he talks about all the many different algorithms used to compute pi. He seems to think that because we can never write down pi and only algorithms for pi, it must not be a number but something new called a metanumber. He draws a parallel where the objects in the sky look like starts, but if you look very close they are actually galaxies. So pi looks like a number but isnt really a number if you look close.

[Anonymous No.10624858]

>>10624846
Oh ok that actually makes sense. I wonder if Wildberger is aware that if we were to follow him and instead of using real numbers we used meta numbers, we would end up with pretty much the same theorems.

[Anonymous No.10624865]

>>10624858
That's basically my beef with him. "Why does any of this matter? If we call pi an irrational real or metanumber, what difference does it actually make in application?" No engineer will ever work with spreads and quandrances, no matter how logically rigorous they are, because it turns out that lengths and angles are actually what we care about.
Btw I love his videos and strongly recommend them

[Anonymous No.10624873]

>>10624865
Yeah, I like his stuff too. I've watched like 1-2 years of his stuff until like half of his algebraic calculus when it just got too boring. But it's funny because all of his theorems about integrals are the same as for our integrals. I wonder where does he expect to actually find something different, or if he'll actually rebuild the wheel all the way. Well, he'll probably die before any of that but he's cool.

I'm a graduating math student and I used to be pretty interested in mathematical logic so that's why I got into his stuff. Now I don't think about those things anymore.

[Anonymous No.10624962]

>>10624865
As a tubro brainlet undergrad, even making mathematics more simple and intuitive would be cool if his work achieves that.

[Anonymous No.10624989]

is there anything this guy says that can't be boiled down to "I don't like the axiom of choice"

[Anonymous No.10625018]

>>10624846
That's just another way of getting at the same concept of transcendentals.

[Anonymous No.10625023]

>>10624962
His method just makes it more complicated because he needs all kinds of Rube Goldberg machinery to deal with irrationals without getting his hands dirty.

[Anonymous No.10625030]

>>10624962
>intuitive
His bullshit is certainly LESS intuitive than the orthodox approach

[Anonymous No.10625031]

>>10623164
Logically the only valid natural numbers are those we can actually count on this planet. The total number of sand grains on earth is a good max number.

[Anonymous No.10625037]

>>10623111
>should exist
Why should natural numbers exist?

[Anonymous No.10625060]

>>10624858
his point is that set theoretic constructions of these "metanumbers" are illogical and dont' actually lead you to grasping anything about them

[Anonymous No.10625098]

>>10624989
no

[Anonymous No.10625205]

>>10623366
holy shit why are mathfags so weebs yikes

[Anonymous No.10625330]

>>10623005
>grown ass dude who doesn’t understand complex numbers
Cringe

[Anonymous No.10625340]

>>10623005
He’s doing high school mistake in understanding numbers. Decimals are just our way to represent numbers, infinite decimals means nothing to the core concept of a number.

[Anonymous No.10625410]

>>10625340
He's got a PhD in math from Yale. Are you sure you aren't just misunderstanding him?

[Anonymous No.10625485]

>>10625330

[Anonymous No.10625492]

>>10625410
Well there are a lot of frauds with degree. I don’t know why he’s doing it, cheap “fame” or he’s generally insane. YouTube video with some school maths is not Phd level.

[Anonymous No.10625499]

>>10625492
>I don’t know why he’s doing it, cheap “fame” or he’s generally insane
Neither. He is a serious, legitimate mathematician who just happens to have incredibly autistic ideas about the philosophy of math.

[Anonymous No.10625502]

>>10625340
Dunning-kruger retard

[Anonymous No.10625516]

>>10625499
>>10625502
>these imbeciles defending a schizo who says that a hypotenuse of a right-squared triangle with unit legs doesn’t have length

[Anonymous No.10625522]

>>10625340
Go ahead, give me a definition of the reals that's logically rigorous.

[Anonymous No.10625530]

>>10625522
>logically rigorous
Conventional definition of reals is logically rigorous. Show logical mistake.

[Anonymous No.10625533]

>>10625516
>a schizo somehow got to be a tenured math professor at a major state institution
You should watch his videos that aren't on math foundations. I reccomend his history of math series.

[Anonymous No.10625542]

>>10625533
I don’t deny that he could be a good mathematician but there are literally a ton of schizos who happens to be professors with hot take ideas. First of all it’s a youtube video without any rigorous approach, if he has some serious papers that have some serious critic then you can call him a mathematician.

[Anonymous No.10625549]

>>10625542
>literally a ton of schizos who happens to be professors with hot take ideas
There literally aren't. Stop using that word so lightly. Jon Tooker is a schizo. Wildberger is merely a gigantic pedant. By the way, does actually have many published papers and rejecting something because it comes in the form of video is beyond stupid.

[Anonymous No.10625558]

>>10625549
>By the way, does actually have many published papers
Maybe he has. I have problems with his video, he just tells that definition of real numbers has logical mistakes but doesn’t really show any. So I make a conclusion he’s a fraud, maybe I’m wrong and if I check his papers I’ll change my mind.

[Anonymous No.10625567]

>>10625558
>So I make a conclusion he’s a fraud
He isn't. Feel free to find a single instance in any of his videos where he makes a legitimate, technical mathematical error. Being autistic about definitions and assumptions doesn't count.

[Anonymous No.10625584]

>>10625567
>where he makes a legitimate
He does not. But he also doesn’t show why modern approach defining reals is wrong either. For example, at 24min he constructs a “ruler” giving some intuition about integers and rational numbers. But some guy in the comment section asked him about right angled triangle with unit legs, a way to construct observable irrational number, and his answer was just “you couldn’t apply length to it”. Why? I say I can, where’s my mistake?

[Anonymous No.10625591]

>>10625584
You didn't make a mistake, agree with you that the hypotenuse of a right triangle with unit legs has a length. Wildberger rejects "length" in formal mathematics all together because he rejects irrationals because he rejects numbers that require an infinite amount of memory just to write down. He isn't wrong, just extreme. See
>>10623023

[Anonymous No.10625604]

>>10625591
>He isn't wrong
But he is. Infinity decimals doesn’t mean “infinity memory to write”. What is “memory” anyway? You see “wrong” in that context means that he doesn’t give any rigorous foundations to his claims and maybe if he starts to actually define everything he states he’ll eventually make an error. It’s easy to not be wrong when you don’t say much.

[Anonymous No.10625616]

>>10625604
He does define everything he states. It's fine to not like him, but criticism of unclarity or lack of rigor sinply don't apply to Wildberger. Every operation he uses he defines, right down to basic addition and subtraction. He contructs the natural numbers before using them. And yes, writing an infinite number of digits implies storing an infinite amount of information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_memory

[Anonymous No.10625632]

>>10625616
>but criticism of unclarity or lack of rigor sinply don't apply to Wildberger
Does he have a rigor approach why we should use practical model of finite computer memory as some fundamental concept? I guess not. Then everything he says is meaningless.
I define sqrt(2) through right angled triangle, I define pi through unit circle, I define e as limit of (1+1/n)^n. I didn’t need infinite memory to define this infinite digits numbers.

[Anonymous No.10625647]

>>10625499
>>10625410
>>10625533
Lmao I did a PhD in pure math and I'm well aware that it doesn't mean shit. Ok so does this guy actually have any papers? No more youtube vids please.

[Anonymous No.10625769]

>>10623720
>schizo
Oy Vey, dont trust him goyim, I called him a schizo
fuck off """schizo""" shills

[Anonymous No.10626061]

>>10625647
Not him but Wildburger discovered rational trigonometry so I assume so.

[Anonymous No.10626460]

>>10623111
Grind down the universe and sieve it through the finest sieve; find me a two or a ten and then tell me that natural numbers are "real"

[Anonymous No.10626644]

>>10625522
equivalence classes of cauchy sequences

if theres a problem with equivalence classes, then point to where
if theres a problem with cauchy sequences (which are made of just rationals), then point to where

[Anonymous No.10626775]

>>10623005
Is Wildberger black??? He looks black in this video.

[Anonymous No.10626782]

>>10624989
Yes, some of his stuff boils down to “I don’t like the axiom of infinity”

[Anonymous No.10626850]

>>10626644
Oh yes, that's a classic... Can't even tell if two reals are different with those, lol.

[Anonymous No.10626864]

>>10623685
source?

[Anonymous No.10626872]

>>10626864
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcIbCZR0HbU

[Anonymous No.10626939]

>>10626850
youve got that backwards retard
you can tell 2 different reals apart in finite time
and the equivalence classes determine if 2 sequences refer to the same real

[Anonymous No.10627002]

>>10626939
You sure 'bout that buddy?

[Anonymous No.10627091]

>>10623096

>duh I dont understand

Go do something within your capabilities then, like mow a lawn, you mindless shrivel fuck.

[Anonymous No.10627121]

>>10627002
god hes so fucking dumb, i can only assume his point is something like
"i can make sequences that start like others, and then ill artificially say they all agree later"
i can make sequences that dont have the same limit as his, just take 1 + any of his

[Anonymous No.10627144]

>>10627121
The point is that they _look_ the same. And you can't verify that they aren't the same unless you have infinite time and memory to do your computation.

[Anonymous No.10627182]

>>10627144
>And you can't verify that they aren't the same
see >>10624989
also >computation

[Anonymous No.10627195]

>>10623023
How come the people giving this presentations are never black? We must be living in some racist times

[Anonymous No.10627212]

>>10627121
>god hes so fucking dumb, says the 18 year-old virgin of swarthy complexion

[Anonymous No.10627252]

>>10627212
>t woman without any defense

[Anonymous No.10627542]

>>10626460
>what are quanta
Although I agree, "ten" is a bullshit number which doesn't appear to have any tangible relevance, besides fingers

[Anonymous No.10627685]

[Anonymous No.10627705]

>>10627685
What about it?

[Anonymous No.10627712]

>>10627685
Doesn't make any sense does it? Nor does the expression "pi=3.1415926..."

[Anonymous No.10627719]

>>10627705
Doesn't make any sense does it? Nor does the expression "pi=3.1415926..."

[Anonymous No.10627723]

>>10627719
It don't make any sense to me sir, no

[Anonymous No.10628115]

>>10627719
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

[Anonymous No.10628169]

>>10623005
Let [math]1[/math] = illogical.

[Anonymous No.10628186]

>not representing all numbers as phasors.
I bet you brainlets can't even solve 2∠180 + 2∠180

[Anonymous No.10628217]

>>10623023
Problems in computational arithmetic aren't just with VNeumann arch, Vol 2 The Art of Computer Programming points out numerous issues with real number floating point in any system. There is an entire EU funded society in France with post-doc positions to research these problems it's still an active area. Yes these things are 'more accurate' but not accurate enough for any kind of prover trying to guarantee a program spec.

>>10623005
This is Wildberger vid series explained:
He prefers a precise specification style of math, with no ambiguities, because it is simple to understand, simple to compute, and just like in programming you can do abstractions with specifications (projective geometry). In the process of redefining things he uses simple arithmetic proofs which you can follow along and if you don't know how to do proofs, it will teach you how after you see enough of them in each video (and exercises he leaves). Things such as polynomias, are really dead simple to understand in his series because he redefines them using an elementary matrix abstraction. Wildberger will also go through the history to compare what mathematicians at the time were trying to do to the modern definition. He thinks set theory should only be seriously used in the field of Combinatorics, which is where it's best suited. He then laments a bunch of things about how hand wave-y the foundations of real numbers are and other questionable foundations in math, but he will teach you these things anyway while criticising them which is a good way to learn, you dig around the internals.

His rational trig and calculus is really easy to learn, you can take programming language of choice and make yourself a rational trig library as you watch the vids, then test yourself to see how it works afterwards using a graphics library. The MathHistory playlist is really interesting too, walking through 'normal' trigonometry and how the ancient greeks used a compass to prove square roots.

[LMC !!eXfD/BnV8lK No.10628232]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory
Anton Setzer - Wheels
http://www.cs.swan.ac.uk/~csetzer/articles/wheel.pdf
Jesper Carlstrom - Wheels: On Division by Zero
http://www2.math.su.se/reports/2001/11/2001-11.pdf

[Anonymous No.10628313]

>>10628232
based lil'minecart, bitch libtard owned

[Anonymous No.10628321]

He is defensor of structuralism. This is enough information for you figure out.

[Anonymous No.10628338]

>>10627121
you just don't get it
the IQ gap between you and him is too high

his is close to a 170 if I recall from his tests

[Anonymous No.10628588]

>>10625604
>But he is. Infinity decimals doesn’t mean “infinity memory to write”.
Would you care to show us an infinite decimal, then? We can wait.
And before you mention it-- no, Wildberger has no problem with approximations and precision, just with pure mathematicians treating infinity and related concepts as casually as they do.

[Anonymous No.10628597]

>>10623107
Show me an "infinite" sequence, reddit-kun
If you use the construct "..." in doing so, define what "..." means.

[Anonymous No.10628652]

>>10628588
>>10628597
oh no, its retarded
no only does it have problems with choice
but it cant even make an infinite sequence
what a fucking train wreck of a position

[Anonymous No.10628812]

>>10625604
Memory = available space.

[Anonymous No.10628829]

>>10623006
are you guys seeing this

John `Calculus man` Gabriel commented

[Anonymous No.10628834]

>>10624073
?? When a mathematician refers to the natural numbers, it is referring to a specific definition. The name itself doesn't imply anything

[Anonymous No.10628849]

>>10623005
No. Basically, he makes videos upon videos to explain that real numbers are not real and not computable, that you cannot know infinity etc.
But nobody said they were. Real numbers are a theoretical shorthand for convergent sequences of rationals; an equality between reals is just two sequences of rationals getting arbitrarily close to one another etc. Nobody said that it was a natural thing, easy to understand or computable. It just makes analysis more convenient because you have more "numbers" (which are arguably artificial constructs) at your disposal, which grants existence theorems like intermediate value theorem, mean-value theorem etc.
Yes, he can argue the meaning of the word "existence" and "number", claim that these numbers are fictional etc. But it is a philosophical debate, and an old one at that. It has no bearing on the consistency of math as it is.
tl;dr: He's basically been strawmanning for a decade and pretending to have uncovered some sort of giant conspiracy whereas this debate is at least as old as set theory and the set-theoretical constructions of the reals.

[Anonymous No.10628852]

>>10628829
>something can not be a PROBLEM if there is no SOLUTION

I am fucking seething

[Anonymous No.10628855]

>>10623005
Since integers do exist in this schizo’s retarded world, I define “e” as such number that for ANY integers a,b I can find thr integer N such that abs(e - (1+1/N)^N)) < a/b. Problem?
>but muh limited memory you can’t write this number!
I din’t care bitch. I can do with this number everything I can do with any integer, retard.
Did I need infinite memory to define this number? NO DUMBASS.

[Anonymous No.10628873]

>>10628829
>infinity was never a problem
>the problem manifests itself right after Claude Shannon
ok guy

[Anonymous No.10628882]

>>10628652
you cant make an infinite sequence either lol fgt

[Anonymous No.10628922]

>>10623208
"Natural" implies nothing, it's just a name for an object, call them positive integers and go fuck yourself and your schizophrenic implications.

[Anonymous No.10628926]

>>10628855
If you can't construct it you haven't defined it.

[Anonymous No.10628938]

>>10628926
I literaly did it, brainlet. Google words construction and a number if you don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.10628939]

>>10628849
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Even if it is old as hell, even it is just philosophical thought, the talk about it is still valid in this days. Global warming, or The solution of Zeno's paradox was never a "old as fuck go to the reddit".

[Anonymous No.10628940]

>>10628849
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Even if it is old as hell, even it is just philosophical thought, the talk about it is still valid in this days. Global warming, or The solution of Zeno's paradox was never a "old as fuck go to the reddit".

[Anonymous No.10628967]

>>10628939
You don't get it. He tells gullible undergrads he has found flaws in standard mathematics when what he is actually doing is just using different axioms while claiming to not use axioms.

[Anonymous No.10629084]

>>10624865
A meta-number looks more like a computable irrational number. So even if we were working with the set of meta-numbers it would still be a countable set.

[Anonymous No.10629196]

>>10628967
The difference is, that his axioms are based on natural, intuitive and traditional concepts like whole numbers and Greek geometry and not modernist, Jewish anomalous contraptions like the messy set theory of ZFC.

[Anonymous No.10629203]

>>10628855
But it's not a number if you can't write a full decimal representation for me! Algorithmic or recursive definitions aren't real because you must run them on a real computer and wait for the output to print!1 Then they BECOME real.

[Anonymous No.10629280]

>>10628939
>the talk about it is still valid in this days
Sure, why not. There are people making arguments for intuitionstic logic and constructive math. There is nothing wrong with that. But they make it clear that it is an aesthetic or philosophical choice.
No serious advocate of constructive math goes around yelling to everyone that the math we have is incoherent because of infinite sets and infinite decimals.

>>10629196
now this is just weak bait

[Anonymous No.10629298]

>>10628855
>an algorithm is a definition

go back to ZFC retard

[Anonymous No.10629310]

>>10629298
There is no algorithm, idiot.

[Anonymous No.10629314]

>>10628829
cute pie theSara90 comments on math video of a luantic.

HOW DO I GET A CUTE MATH GF GUYS PPPPPPLEEEEAASSSE

[Anonymous No.10629337]

>>10623005
0.(9) < 1 confirmed

[Anonymous No.10629346]

Literal retards ITT.
>durrrrr the number has to be exact
No it doesn't, just take the first 5 decimals and use that if you're so autistic about real numbers.

[Anonymous No.10629357]

>>10629196
>abandons length
>bases everything on what computers can do in decimal form
>constantly appeals to dishonest rhetoric
So natural and intuitive.

[Anonymous No.10629426]

>>10629357
do u like suck cock fegot

[Anonymous No.10629760]

>>10628926
>>10629203
>>10629298
>choicelets ruining everything they touch
your position is wack and your complaints are weak

[Anonymous No.10629887]

>>10623005
>length doesn’t exist because computers have limited memory
Okay

[Anonymous No.10629897]

>>10623005
does he mention dedekind cuts?

[Anonymous No.10629950]

>>10629897
yes he mentions all of them

[Anonymous No.10630966]

>>10629357
Length and angles can just be abstracted to something else, there's no reason to use it as part of your specification. Tomorrow you could come up with your own math foundations for everything, there's no reason to only accept the status quo and it's what researchers are doing with cartesian cubical type theory and attempting to write better proof solvers than the current shit show of piles of first order logic and set theory.

I just don't get hating on Wildberger, it's like hating on Axler because he wrote a book where you can learn linear algebra without using determinants.

[Anonymous No.10630998]

>>10630966
Axler doesnt say that the fundamental theorem of algebra is false
Axler doesnt say that math is wrong, maybe just that its taught in the wrong way
Wildberger does

[Anonymous No.10631072]

>>10623005
>illogical
no
>flawed
yes, and all possible understandings of the reals must be, so he is just chasing a dragon.

[Anonymous No.10631477]

>>10628849
>Wildberger thread
>doofus undergrad who just took Analysis I at state school acts indignant and spouts off what he remembers from class
Every time.
When did sci get so reddit?
Why does finitism piss undergrads off so much?
>>10629346
Nobody is making the claim that you can't use approximations. I know you're scared and afraid but you'll be ok anon, nobody will make pi illegal and take her away from you

[Anonymous No.10631906]

>>10630966
I was responding to someone who claimed that Wildberger's rhetoric is justified because his math is more intuitive, natural, and traditional. Now you're talking about abstractions and new math. Which is it? All if his fans seem to just interpret his style in whichever way they want while ignoring everything else. If he just wants to be another alternative then he should not pretend he has found flaws in math and that his way is the "true" way.

[Anonymous No.10633414]

>>10631906
He hasn't found any flaws, he isn't the first mathematician to have a problem with axiomatic set theory. He doesn't present a "true" way either and there's absolutely no reason for you to post in this thread. You are free to ignore undecidable problems in abstract algebra within standard ZFC set theory and just carry on with whatever shitposting you normally do like your undergrad uni blogging spam that's in every other thread.

[Anonymous No.10634505]

>>10633414
>He doesn't present a "true" way either
he presents msets

[Anonymous No.10635366]

>>10633414
So you admit I'm right and Wildberger is a liar, thanks.

[Anonymous No.10637035]

>>10628217
You actually read TAOCP?

[Anonymous No.10638075]

>>10635366
You act like a little kid, why are you larping on /sci/ you clearly have not had a day in school outside of 7th grade.

>>10631477
Also notice how the brainlets who are triggered by Wildberger only engage in bike shedding over his real number criticism, and don't even know about Wildberger's new foundations for Geometry he presents as well since they haven't watched a single video except a 10 second excerpt on the continuum. Absolutely lowest tier undergrad.

[Anonymous No.10638515]

>>10638075
Also notice how the brainlets always ignore Wildbergers real number shit since its indefensible, so they just jump ship to the stuff no one it talking about
wildbergers geometry is, at best, a massive waste of time
stop fucking "defending" him with this ad hominem shit, if you have something meaningful to say, then just say it you fucking pussy