[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 2.79 MB, 853x480, 1542059177611.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11447251 No.11447251 [Reply] [Original]

Wildberger is actually right about everything and I'd be surprised if there is anyone on this board who could even come up with a valid argument against him.

>> No.11448519

>>11447251
Universe itself is number with infinite precision.

There are not infini... wait, there are generators that outputs number forever, and that numbers can change.

Like integeres, uncountably infinite, even if you counted for infinite amount of time, you would just reach overflow, but not the end of integers..

>> No.11448551

>>11447251
all he's saying is that math should be hundred percent finite, constructible, computable etc. the argument against him is the indisputable utility of infinite math.

>> No.11448572

>>11447251
Wildberger isn't actually right about anything, and I'd be surprised if anyone who has graduated high school cannot easily dismiss his ridiculous strawman attempts.

>> No.11448595

>>11447251
Wildberger teaches us that there is a number n such that n+1 is no longer a number. He is right, and there is no valid counterargument.

>> No.11448613

>>11447251
What argument? That there aren't infinite numbers?
Real, whole values can be expressed in infinite sums--if you "take away" even one of those values, then your number all of a sudden isn't whole. 2 is an infinite sum of fractions, take away the 1/23402342038230482340 and you've only got 1.9999999999999999 so there you go, the infinite is real.

>> No.11448639

>>11448613
>taking away a finite part of a whole leaves it less than the whole
>therefore numbers are infinite sums
lmao

>> No.11448645

>>11448613
This whole crackpot thing was funnier in the old days. Like some of them would actually try to learn some maths just to counter the most obvious flaws in their nonsensical thinking. But Wildberger is more of a lost cause, it is doubtful that he will ever try to educate himself.

>> No.11448666

>>11448645
>the most obvious flaws in their nonsensical thinking
literally name one

>> No.11448701

>>11448666
There used be a thing called math.sci.net. You can try to find the archives if you are into this kind of thing. For instance Wolfgang Mückenheim, who seems to be a mentor for Wildberger, always wanted to argue that the set of rational numbers 1/n for positive natural number n also contains 0, because 0 is a limit for the sequence 1/n.

>> No.11448707

>>11448701
you haven't named an obvious flaw, we're talking about wildberger, go on

>> No.11448736

>>11448551
>100 percent finite
Not really.
Wildberger's major position is that ZF set theory is a trash way to represent the foundations of all math. It's from there he argues for computability and finitism in SOME math, but not all fields of math, just the foundations that hold everything together. He argues that because Discrete Math is finite, it has seen the most advances over the years because it's math done correctly unlike the leaky abstractions we've created everywhere else.

Wildberger also despises philosophy math, where you aimlessly ponder stupid shit and try and shove it into mathematics. He thinks real numbers are shitty invention and instead you can just patch existing number systems instead of stapling some infinite series to the number line and trying to force it. His Trig views make sense too, put everything in the realm of linear algebra and use vectors for geometry not awful transcendental functions.

Again Wildberger doesn't say all math must be finite he says the foundations of math must be in order to not be a house of cards, and it's perfectly fine to have your own abstract branch that is entirely based on ZF set theory just don't use it for the foundations of all math.

That said I don't agree with his shilling of the 'Babylon tablets' or any of that bullshit

>> No.11448773

>>11448551
> indisputable utility of infinite math.
/thread

>> No.11448789

>>11448707
I was answering to another poster, who happened to be asking about obvious flaws in the thinking of other crackpots. You have to realize that a set is defined by its elements, which is why this is an obvious flaw.

>> No.11448791

>>11448773
it’s not needed

>> No.11448799

>>11448595
What such number?

>> No.11448807

>>11448799
Thus He spake. There is such a Number, but you can neither compute, construct, or explain what it is. There is only the holy word of Wildberger in which you have to place your trust.

>> No.11448915

>>11448791
>i

yes, it is, the limit uses infinity, everything else in calculus follows from the limit and thus requires infinity as well

>> No.11448936

>>11448736
>Wildberger also despises philosophy math, where you aimlessly ponder stupid shit
This right here.

>> No.11448953

>>11448595
wow you're mentally insane