/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12480779]

>even normie pop sci YT channels are skeptical of the "real numbers"
infinists schizos BTFO'd again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTUVdXI2vng

[Anonymous No.12480787]

based

[Anonymous No.12480824]

do people acc believe that dedekin cuts are a valid construction ?

[Anonymous No.12480831]

PRAISE OUR LORD WILDBERGER

[Anonymous No.12480849]

infinistists need to take their meds

[Anonymous No.12480851]

>even normie pop sci YT channels are skeptical of the "real numbers"
All the more reason to believe in them

[Anonymous No.12480854]

GO AWAY REALS

[Anonymous No.12480894]

>>12480779
kek we win again finitist bros! Nobody can stop us.

[Anonymous No.12480900]

>>12480894
ah yes ! another daily victory against these schizos fellow finist

[Anonymous No.12480902]

She is so hot

[Anonymous No.12480915]

>>12480779
id fuck her in her dedekin cut if you catch my drift........

[Anonymous No.12480917]

>>12480779
being a retard -> implies i'm correct

xd?

[Anonymous No.12480978]

I like it how she doesn't even bother trying to explain how the arithmetic works out with diddykind cuts

[Anonymous No.12480982]

>>12480978
based and finitepilled

[Anonymous No.12480990]

[Anonymous No.12481009]

>>12480779
whats her name ? she cute af

[Anonymous No.12481117]

>>12480915
what did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.12481130]

>>12480915
based coomer

[Anonymous No.12481156]

>>12480915
>her

[Anonymous No.12481885]

>>12480854
Go away reals

[Anonymous No.12481927]

>>12480854
GO AWAY REALS

[Anonymous No.12482073]

>>12480854
GO AWAY REALS

[Anonymous No.12482084]

>>12481156
Just fuck off trannylover

[Anonymous No.12482094]

>>12480854
GO AWAY REALS

[Anonymous No.12482098]

There is no crisis at all.

[Anonymous No.12482107]

>>12480779
>what is a cauchy completion???

[Anonymous No.12482133]

>>12482107
A definition that doesnt work.

[Anonymous No.12482164]

>>12480779
>White people bad

Wow, what an informative video.

[Anonymous No.12482297]

>>12480779
>dedekind cuts
Also, the """definition""" she gives for sqrt(2), even assuming the delusion of """infinite sets""", is wrong. The lower cut needs to be {q | q^2 < 2 or q < 0} and the upper cut needs to be {q | q^2 > 2 and q > 0}. She ignores the q < 0/q > 0 conditions, so negative numbers like -5 are in her upper cut, not her lower cut (pic related).
>>12480978
This is probably why she didn't try to do arithmetic with it lmao. The absolute state of """real number""" theorists. Additionally, Wildberger is once again vindicated, because she only gave the basic babby example of sqrt(2) since it requires checking 2 conditions, which is why basically every analysis textbook uses this """definition.""" If you want to define pi, good luck checking an infinite number of conditions lmao.

>she actually says "math is built out of simpler math"
>proceeds to define integers with """infinite sets""" corresponding to an equivalence class of pairs of natural numbers
She literally assumes the existence of an actual infinity to get her definition of the integers and claims that somehow simpler than the natural numbers lmao. And yes, I know by simpler, she means "more fundamental", but that doesn't make it any less delusional.

The only good thing about this video is that she admitted the a(>>>/x/)iom of infinity is pure cope that mathematicians would like to believe so they just assumed it was true.

[Anonymous No.12482310]

>>12480854
but he rejects axioms

[Anonymous No.12482341]

>>12480824
Well, tookie thinks.

[Anonymous No.12482460]

>>12480779
>that obvious voice cut to correct the name of Ernst Snapper
>Newton's principia image instead of Russell's

How did she pronounce "Gödel"? at 8:51???
Gurdel?

What is this amateur garbage?

[Anonymous No.12482773]

>>12480779
Yes, there is no infinity, but there are numbers that doesn't fit into our universe.