[ 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: 116 KB, 319x333, 2trivial4Shane.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6967026 No.6967026 [Reply] [Original]

http://youtu.be/rCDRCGjmaO8

The Wildberger finally says something about axiomatics.

>> No.6967031
File: 34 KB, 603x602, 32132131231.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6967031

we should arrange a meeting between wildberger and our godking shane

also

>implying lenardo had emotions lol

>> No.6967071

>>6967031
Operation #shaneshaming is HAPPENING
stage two is a go

>>6967026
interesting to see what he does think is good math (@ 12:00). It's more clear why I don't agree with him: I don't believe in the existence of one set of clear and unambiguous definitions from which (for example) the natural numbers could follow. The criteria of beauty and naturality are either subjective and changing, or platonic and eternal. In the former case, they cannot serve as the clear and unambiguous foundation Wildburger seeks. In the latter our aces to the these properties is highly dubious.

>> No.6967079

>>6967026
NJW > *

love that guy. he's the best math prof I've come across. his vids are worth downloading & saving. I have 5GB worth of his videos so far.

>> No.6967117
File: 976 KB, 350x263, 1414688758600.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6967117

>>6967026
I don't get what he is on about. Axioms are leafs (vertices of degree 1) in proof trees with the theorem to be proven as root vertix. Why complicate things?

>> No.6967123

>>6967117
> leafs
Was supposed to read "leaves". Disregard me, I suck axioms.

>> No.6967132
File: 563 KB, 569x802, 1419214457001.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6967132

WILDBERGER?

>> No.6967138

>>6967132
<span class="math">4\upsilon[/spoiler]

>> No.6967172
File: 165 KB, 748x563, WILDberger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6967172

>>6967026
My god he just keeps on destroying R.
Doesnt this man know any merci?

>> No.6967205

>>6967026
>imprecision of terminology.
>which is often the core reason we get confused, because we don't use words clearly and precisely enough

less than 10 seconds later
>from a "classical point of view"

stop watching there

>> No.6967254

>>6967026
so does this guy have his own construction of real numbers or is he just a the mathematical equivalent of a politician ?

>> No.6967255

test. Why doesn't this work with cookies disabled? Why doesn't this work with Javascript disabled?

>> No.6967259

>>6967254
He doesn't believe the real numbers or any other infinite set exists.

>> No.6967261

>>6967254
You can't construct something that doesn't exist.

>> No.6967265

>>6967261
does the ratio of a euclidian circle's circumferance to the length of it radius exist ?
Does the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle exist ?

>> No.6967268

>>6967265
no

>> No.6967277

>>6967268
ok then I disagree with his vision of mathematics.
I thought he was dismissing everything only to propose a better way of dealing with his so called "difficulties", but in the end no results.

How do we do physics with his conception of mathematics ?

>> No.6967278

>>6967277
>how can you be moral without god

>> No.6967281

>>6967277
>he is proposing
>he

he's just explaining
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-constructive/

>> No.6967282

I like this guy. Look. Thought is a new phenomenon in humans, and we are just getting around to the fundamentals of clear thinking, among which are:
1. We create narratives after the observation, not before.
2. We always have a purpose to any inquiry that boxes in the shape that the narrative can take.
3. We assume a connectedness to our narratives because of an assumed connectedness of the logos, even though #2 basically say that is impossible.
4. We don't fully understand our own psychological limitations in understanding, although behavioral studies constantly show us our hubris.

I like this guy because he asks questions that will lead him to Pragmatism, once he. like Peirce, spends a little more time on whether continua is anything more than a narrative.

http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2007/10/15/dirty-rotten-infinite-sets-and-the-foundations-of-math/


This guy's section on how we teach also "gets" the Rube Goldberg nature of our psyche.

>> No.6967630
File: 1.54 MB, 2000x1000, wildberger.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6967630

>>6967026

>> No.6967640

>>6967630
oh my god you are all autistic as fuck holy shit

time to leave.

>> No.6967673
File: 144 KB, 612x612, carry_home_after_lifting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6967673

Am I the only one who thinks he's an attractive older man? (Sans the dark eye sockets)

>> No.6967678

>>6967673
>>>/lgbt/

>> No.6967764

So what does he think the hypotenuse of a isosceles right triangle is? Because I have a lot of those in my architecture, so it's not totally unfounded in reality

>> No.6967765

>>6967678
>gay people can't be /sci/entists

>>>/pol/

>> No.6967777

>>6967764
He squares length in his rational trigonometry so he doesnt end up with an irrational square root

>> No.6967782

>>6967777
he doesn't seem to take issues with computable reals
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/papers/Chapter27.pdf

>> No.6967851

Never heard of this guy. Does he believe in non-Euclidean geometry?

>> No.6967926

>>6967782
>computable reals
As opposed to what?