/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15040646]

.

[Anonymous No.15040715]

>53
>prime

[Anonymous No.15041730]

>>15040715
fly away, troll.

[Anonymous No.15041843]

>>15040646
If you believe that 10^10^... +23 denotes a definite natural number, im having trouble seeing how "the smallest prime factor of z" doesnt also refer to a definite natural number. I agree with Wildberger on the issue of real numbers, but this just seems inconsistent in my view. Why does z refer to a number? Can he explain it?

[Anonymous No.15041853]

>>15041843
>the smallest prime factor of z
v.
>Find the prime factorization of ___
Two different subjects.
>If you believe that 10^10^... +23
>but this just seems inconsistent in my view
If it is a natural number, there should be a prime factorization. However, [math] 10\Delta 10 + 23 [/math] can be considered a natural number because it is a arithmetic combination (using addition and multiplication) of natural numbers.

[Anonymous No.15041868]

>>15041853
>because it is a arithmetic combination (using addition and multiplication) of natural numbers.
Is it? How do you know? Please write it in terms of addition, multiplication and digits only. No dot dot dots.

[Anonymous No.15041911]

>>15041868
you've lost, now stfu

[Anonymous No.15041918]

>>15041911
sorry sweaty but if you can't write your explicit calculation in a 4chan post then it ain't an actual number. Thanks for playing

[Anonymous No.15041919]

>>15041918
see pic rel >>15041911

[Anonymous No.15041942]

>>15041868
There aren't enough characters on this website to write it down. But, if I wanted to spend several days to write it down you could. It's 1, then a huge number of zeros, and finally the last two digits are 23.

[Anonymous No.15041943]

>>15041919
You are committing the fallacy fallacy with that argument

[Anonymous No.15041947]

>>15041942
>But, if I wanted to spend several days to write it down you could
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.15041950]

>>15041947
see >>15041911

[Anonymous No.15041952]

>>15041947
Why should I have to? It's plain and simple definitions here. Natural numbers are defined via arithmetic combinations of 1, and by extension, arithmetic combinations of other natural numbers. You're just being retardedly obtuse here.

[Anonymous No.15041953]

>>15041943
see (b) >>15041911

[Anonymous No.15041981]

Has Wildberger actually contributed any novel results, or does he just deny the existence of certain things?

[Anonymous No.15042006]

>>15041952
so by your standard if something can be constructed by an algorithm, even if it would take more time than the entire life of the universe, it's still a real mathematical concept?

[Anonymous No.15042012]

>>15041981
there are plenty of branches of maths that make do without ant infinities. but instead of contributing to them he just spergs about infinitesimal calculus

[Anonymous No.15042013]

>>15042006
the hypothesis that the universe has a finite lifespan comes from cosmological models that rely on the infinitary math you deny exists

[Anonymous No.15042033]

>>15042012
This

[Anonymous No.15042040]

>>15042012
>there are plenty of branches of maths that make do without ant infinities
such as?

[Anonymous No.15042056]

>>15042040
the ones that allows you to be a pseud on this board right now

[Anonymous No.15042064]

>>15041981
Wildberger has published research in Lie algebras and representation theory, which ironically enough probably required him to assume the existence of infinite sets (such as the set of all invertible matrices with integer entries) and / or use Axiom of Choice on an infinite set.

[Anonymous No.15042076]

>>15042064
samefag, found pic

[Anonymous No.15042109]

>>15042076
>doesn't believe in real numbers
>believes in lie groups

[Anonymous No.15042128]

>>15042109
>>believes in lie groups
How exactly are you deriving this from the image?

[Anonymous No.15042131]

>>15042109
lol right? My best guess is that he's playing the game for his professional career so he can keep getting paid to also work on his finitist stuff.

[Anonymous No.15042138]

>>15042131
Or his views can change while working on the project and just decided to finish it because it was almost done or afterwords.

[Anonymous No.15042158]

>>15042128
This isn't my field of expertise, but it's my understanding that one of the things that's nice about Lie groups is that the group itself is a smooth manifold (presumably can embedded in R^n or C^n at least a lot of the time) upon which you can perform analysis. Plus the man's published on harmonic analysis, and I doubt he was doing it with his rational numbers theory of functions and continuity. Check out this article:

https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/papers/CharactersBimodules.pdf

Working with SU(2) is essentially conceding the existence of the Platonic sphere.

[Anonymous No.15042178]

>>15042128
The multiple mentions of "Lie groups." If no such object exists then everything about them that he researches is either true, false, or meaningless, depending on how you interpret statements about non-existing entities

[Anonymous No.15042227]

>>15042158
>https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/papers/CharactersBimodules.pdf
That's also considering much of his rationalist work is after this. He essentially stops doing research along these lines about mid-2000 and starts doing the rational geometry.
>Working with SU(2) is essentially conceding the existence of the Platonic sphere.
It's not. SU(2) is simply defined in terms of 2x2 matrices complex components and determinant 1. It's actually possible to work with this without any geometric interpretations or non-rational interpretation. That is, you can work with it completely algebraically without invoke anything like real numbers, topology, or set theory. That's in the same way you can talk about the rational version of complex numbers. You can even talk about SU(2) in terms of finite complex fields, i.e. numbers of the form [math] z= x + i y [/math] where [math]x,y [/math] are in [math] \mathbb{Z}_p [/math] and i is defined in terms of an object which satisfies [math] i^2 =-1 [/math] like some special 2x2 matrices. Simply a complex valued matrix is a special unitary matrix if its determinant is exactly 1 whether or not you're using a finite or rational complex field.
>>15042178
>The multiple mentions of "Lie groups." If no such object exists then everything about them that he researches is either true, false, or meaningless, depending on how you interpret statements about non-existing entities
In old papers. There's a point he stops publishing about them and starts working about rationally.
>non-existing entities
Or there is a better, more precise definition of whatever a "Lie group" would be. The current Differential Geometry definition is actually quite recent. Here's what Lie and Engels did
https://archive.org/details/theotransformation02liesrich/page/n507/mode/2up
Like much of the mathematics of the past, it's very applied in it relies on the more physically motivated calculus of the prior centuries and not on any modern set theory or geometry.

[Anonymous No.15042257]

>>15042227
>There's a point he stops publishing about them and starts working about rationally.
has he proved any new results since making this transition?
>Or there is a better, more precise definition of whatever a "Lie group" would be. The current Differential Geometry definition is actually quite recent. Here's what Lie and Engels did
I don't read german but I see a lot of math on that page that requires analysis

[Anonymous No.15042324]

>>15042257
>has he proved any new results since making this transition?
Not an argument.
>I don't read german
You don't have to. There is no set theory and the only thing the book requires is the ability to take derivatives.
>requires analysis
It requires at most some basic calculus. What's said to "require analysis" these days in regard to the classical calculus is just people taking the operations and reasoning from physical intuition or what was often from simple algebraic definitions and pretending that the modern approach of analysis. It really isn't. The reality is that, the classical calculus predated analysis and though it also was founded on poorly defined objects like so-called "differentials" or Newton's "hyperions," there were quite a few ways to approach everything algebraically if the scope of the material is sufficiently limited and you don't pretend you can work with things that you don't even know whether or not they actually exist. You don't need set theory or any of the baggage from analysis to do classical calculus. It would be better to drop the baggage from set theory and go to a more down-to-earth algebraic perspective.

[Anonymous No.15042334]

>>15042324
>Not an argument.
Agreed, it's a question. Has he? If the answer is "no" then this would be an argument that his worldview is not useful.

[Anonymous No.15042336]

>>15042334
Check his papers and see
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Norman-Wildberger
His most recent paper published was from last year.

[Anonymous No.15042337]

>>15040646
obviously 3 is a factor

[Anonymous No.15042342]

>>15042336
Point taken, and this actually does look like interesting stuff -- although his often-touted fact that the results they get from this method align with the results from mainstream analysis seem like evidence that the modern approach works fine.

[Anonymous No.15042356]

>>15042342
>mainstream analysis
Most of the "results of mainstream analysis" are results from the more algebraic classical calculus. NJW's approach is a return to the more classical algebraic perspectives.

[Anonymous No.15042440]

>>15042356
is the gamma function a thing in algebraic classical calculus or is that a modernist function?

[Anonymous No.15043089]

>>15042064
Thats not ironic. Stop using the word if you dont know what it means.

[Anonymous No.15043143]

>>15043089
It is. You literally do not understand colloquial English and that speaks volumes, retard.