/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10963882]

But seriously, has anyone proved him wrong?

[Anonymous No.10963978]

It's another burden of proof thread.
I'll humor you, who the fuck even is that and what is his conjecture?

[Anonymous No.10964008]

>>10963882
Retroactively btfo by Liouville and Cantor.

[Anonymous No.10964089]

Of course not. You can't prove wrong someone who's not even wrong.

[Anonymous No.10964218]

Regarding which claims?

[Anonymous No.10964231]

>u can't now nuffin
>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.10964285]

>>10963882
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead.

[Anonymous No.10965682]

Is his book any good?

[Anonymous No.10965724]

>>10965682
Of course, didn't you see the ad?

[Anonymous No.10965739]

>>10963978
td;dr
>real numbers are a spook
>all things derivative of real numbers (trigonometric functions, logarithms, square roots) are a spook
>the physical world can only be understood through geometry, integers and rationals
>anything else is jewish and wrong
he is also redpilled on banks and makes math videos for kids

[Anonymous No.10965758]

>>10963882
Ultrafinitism is, as far as anyone knows, valid (if limiting) foundation for math. He's stupid for saying that everyone else os wrong, because the stuff he REEEEEs about is (as far as anyone knows), also valid.

[Anonymous No.10965883]

>>10965758
Saying that the square root of 2 exists as an infinite decimal number isn't necessarily wrong, it's just dishonest.
I agree that the right way to think about irrationals are as algorithms that can approximate these immaterial objects.

[Anonymous No.10965889]

>>10965724
I still can't get over the fact that mathematicians decided to call them the Reals, when they have nothing to do with the real (material) world.

[Anonymous No.10965901]

>>10965739
Well then what about fucking electricity? This shit has imaginaries floatn around all over the place and my computer is running

[Anonymous No.10965921]

>>10965901
Imaginaries can be finite. For example: 1 +3i, 8 - 7i, etc.

[Anonymous No.10965928]

>>10965901
Also, imaginaries simply model electricity. They are not floating around all over the place in the same way that counting numbers are not floating around.

[Anonymous No.10965978]

>>10965883
>Saying that the square root of 2 exists as an infinite decimal number isn't necessarily wrong, it's just dishonest.
How is that "dishonest"?
>I agree that the right way to think about irrationals are as algorithms that can approximate these immaterial objects.
Wrong. Not all real numbers are computable.

[Anonymous No.10966016]

>>10965889

Yeah, that fucked me up good for years as a kid. As a result I now have an obsession counting the number of times I examine my fingers for ear wax. Shit is not cash.

[Anonymous No.10966033]

>>10965978
It's dishonest because it will always be an approximation. It is impossible to represent the square root of 2 as an infinite decimal in it's full glory.
Uncomputable numbers is one of the main reasons to be suspicious of "real" numbers. So if there is no algorithm or process of computing some number, in what sense does it exist? I think it's just a band aid on the wound that is the real numbers.

[Anonymous No.10966036]

>>10963882
During math classes I had a deep sense of unease with the reals. But I lacked the insight and deferred to the authority of people "who must be a lot smarter" than me. I kept my doubts to myself and then half forgot about them. It was a relief then, years later, watching the Wild Burger point out the logical inconsistencies and intellectual dishonesty involving real numbers.

[Anonymous No.10966054]

>>10966033

If its always an approximation, then does it actually exist in any meaningful way?

Does anyone know why such a basic, fundamental thing, the square root of 2, has got be so inscrutable? Like, is there a deeper logical reason which reveals why it can never be precisely calculated.

[Anonymous No.10966075]

>>10966054
Sure. I like to think of it as an algorithm. It is amazing how such a simple construction of a right triangle with side lengths of 1 can lead to such an object.

[Anonymous No.10966096]

>>10966054
I think the main reason is the nature of measurement and uncertainty (as it deals with continuous things). Every measurement has an associated uncertainty. Outside of definitions you can never measure something exactly (unless it is discrete in nature)

[Anonymous No.10966177]

>>10963978
>who the fuck even is that
That's APD Officer Baines, a fine man who I like very much, and who occupies a nice place in my memory.

[Anonymous No.10966181]

>>10964089
>not even wrong.
not even my limp dick slapping your children's corpses' faces

[Anonymous No.10966272]

>>10966181
that you Tooker? was wondering about you the other day

[Anonymous No.10966280]

>>10966272
WHAT WERE WONDERING THEN?

[Anonymous No.10966415]

>>10966033
>It is impossible to represent the square root of 2 as an infinite decimal in it's full glory.
And so it’s impossible to write down decimal representation of 1/3.
Why do you glorify decimal expansions so much? It’s only one possible number representation, most convenient in most cases, but there’s nothing special about it, nothing makes it superior to other representations, it’s not “if I can’t write down it in decimal then it ain’t no number”.
Why do do you think [math]\sqrt2[/math] or [math]x: x^2=2[/math] is not a valid number, but you’re fine with [math]\frac13[/math] or [math]x:3x=1[/math]?

[Anonymous No.10966450]

>>10965682
i have it downloaded and plan on reading it one of these days

[Anonymous No.10966555]

>>10966415

But of course we know that the decimal repeats (and we can write it as a rational) This is not the case with irrationals.

I think it is a valid number but the way it is taught involves a lot of hand waving. At the core I think it is something that does not receive enough inspection.

For example: take the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. Just because I can describe something does not mean it is a logically consistent object (this is an extreme example).

>>10966450
Gonna do the same.

[Anonymous No.10966574]

>>10965682
>his book

[Anonymous No.10966586]

It is not the same:

You can define Q as pairs of integers.

Here you are mentioning elements which are in the algebraic closure of Q.
I suppose he doesn't believe that exists either, but I do not think he will deny the existence of finite field extensions $Q(\sqrt{2},...)$.
Therefore we can speak about \sqrt{2} because we just are just thinking in a field extension.

But the reals also contain transcendental elements, like pi. Those are defined as a cauchy-series or something equivalent.
In either case you need to believe that infinite sets make sense, and that you can define operations on them.
And i believe he doesn't believe in infinite sets.

You may ask how he handles the integers then for example. He doesn't define them in terms of sets but says the integers (and the rationals) are types and hence doesn't use the notion of a set.

[Anonymous No.10966635]

>>10966555
Stupid argument, not only Wildberger dislikes those "dot dot dot" "it goes on" descriptions, but the same can be done for some irrationals, like that constant with 0s everywhere except at n!th position where there are 1s.

[Anonymous No.10966645]

>>10965682
I have kinda basic high school knowledge of math USSR style,will I be able to follow this book?
Im kinda intrigued by the claim in reviews on amazon that it teaches trigonometry.

[Anonymous No.10966662]

Wilder Bergers finitism isn't "wrong", as it's a philosophical decission.
And while he's right that it's sort of sad whenever people accept math presented to them without coming to think of the computinility issues that go with power sets of the countable, Wildbergers is also lazy in that he just opts for a "they corrupt the yought" line of argument and doesn't want to concern himself with finite/implementable methods that go beyond his finitism.
E.g. dropping sets and a calculus of reasoning about membership in sets "a in s", you can get farther const actively already by demanding your terms type check with respect to a fully specified algorithm "X : t". Then your "big object" (s resp. t) is not a Cantorian "completed infinity" but an index t pointing to a check. This is not only richer, but also already on an implented level.
His fault is in throwing the baby out of the bathwater by, due to being brined by set theory, pathologically rejecting the Axiomatic Method(s) in general (and, as an aside, the possibility for any sort rich formalist approach with it).
But okay, he's in retirement, so let him do his addition to 20 videos now.

[Anonymous No.10966663]

nope

[Anonymous No.10966896]

>>10965739
MFW
>It's plausible

[Anonymous No.10966948]

>>10963882
Asking to prove that ultrafinitism is wrong is basically the same as "prove me that you are not merely a product of my imagination".

[Anonymous No.10967523]

>>10966645

It's worth giving it a try.
You can download the full pdf here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266738365_Divine_Proportions_Rational_Trigonometry_to_Universal_geometry

[Anonymous No.10967636]

>>10967523
alright thanks anon