[ 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: 41 KB, 400x300, Norman..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7003598 No.7003598[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Our god has finally spoken once again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rjxOFAzBa4

>> No.7003622
File: 1012 KB, 300x168, ramos_penalty.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7003622

I was just about to post this. Going to make myself a hot cup of coffee and watch the genius speak again. Can't wait to hear what the second most important theorem in all of mathematics is.

>> No.7003629

>>7003622
I'll join you. I'm currently preparing some coffee.

>> No.7003633

>>7003622
Triple Quad Formula.
#1 is pythagorean theorem

>> No.7003642
File: 172 KB, 1440x900, man_of_rationality.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7003642

Fucksake. Not again, Norman -.-

>> No.7003650

The stuff he advertises here is pretty, but it's engineering math - no current unsolved mathematical problem can be approached with tools that are known for 400 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_trigonometry#Laws_of_rational_trigonometry

The underlying computational mindset might be admirable, but it's also not new in any sense.
What's the point?

>> No.7003654

>>7003650
To make it easier, to leave out irrational numbers, and transcendental functions.

>> No.7003675
File: 37 KB, 251x242, 1387402984531.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7003675

>25 minutes of algebraic manipulations

>> No.7003684

Pretty sure he doesn't pretend to be a genius, you guys.

>> No.7003687

>>7003650
He thinks the currently popular infinite choice-based mindset is nonsense, is the point.

>> No.7003693

>>7003598
LOL, HE WAS JUST TRYING TO SELL HIS BOOK ALL ALONG. I have more respect for the mathematician formerly known as a nutjob.

>> No.7003699

>>7003693
I hope that isn't why threads about him keep getting deleted :(

>> No.7003703

>>7003654
>>7003687
>>7003699
>all these Koolaid drinkers know nothing about modern math

>> No.7003710

I'm sort of new here. Why does /sci/ laughs at him so much? He isn't some stupid guy promoting free energy, he has just a non-standard view of mathematics which has logical consistency. I really don't see the joke here.

>> No.7003714

>>7003687
The points he discussed before where more fundamental than how elementary geometry can be pulled off. It would be much more interesting to see modern math (without choice then), which has applications to questions where the solutions are common knowledge.

>> No.7003718

>>7003710
Whether you like his content of not,
the /sci/ people complaining about him are just STEM majors who don't reflect on what they learn in their first 2 years of math of physics/math for mechanics etc.

>> No.7003719

>>7003710
Because there aren't any actual mathematicians on /sci/, just a bunch of math fanboys

>> No.7003724

>>7003718
>>7003719
Oh, thank you.

I'm really enjoying his video. He is very clear and it's interesting what he has to say.

>> No.7003732

Fuck off and stop spamming this shit every day.

>> No.7003740

>>7003719
There have been many graduate level answers from multiple people over the years. There are just very few threads that require that level.

>> No.7003749

>>7003724
This.

I'm a math graduate student, and I love listening to his videos every week.

>> No.7003758

Philosophy belongs on >>>/lit/

"I don't like it" and "muh belief" are not valid arguments in math. Math works irregardless of whether some self-proclaimed crackpot on youtube doesn't accept it.

>> No.7003764

>>7003710
He gets laughed at for two reasons. The first is his idiotic political rhetoric. Mathematicians are apparently trying to "deceive" people into "believing" the "dogma" of axiom of choice or infinity axiom. And they "hide" the foundations of their "unproven" theorems because they aren't in general textbooks. All of this sounds pretty stupid to anyone who has gotten past freshman-level mathematics. Axioms are not dogmatic and constructions of the reals can be found easily if you look in appropriate sources. These unmathematical criticisms only serve to convince naive students with conspiracy logic and contrarianism.

Second, there are serious schools of constructionist and finitist mathematics, but Wildberger is not in them. He has produced nothing for these schools. "Rational trigonometry" is trivial relabeling. Instead of content he rants. It seems like he's trying to be more of a youtube iconoclast rather than a mathematician. Which is why you have all these idiot fans of his promoting him while no mathematician gives a fuck about anything he's said.

>> No.7003773

He does have a point about the infinite processes though, in my opinion. I remember when I for the first time studied the proof of Baire's category theorem and it struck me "can I really construct an infinitely descending sequence of closed balls?". Nowadays I just accept such things without really having thought about it.

>> No.7003792

>>7003764
Dude just doesn't like the kind of things that are taught in low-level analysis courses as if they are absolute truths and the correct way to think about mathematics, and his rhetoric reflects that. If things like construction of the reals and Cantor's diagonal argument were taken out of them, he'd be happy (or at least happier)

>> No.7003803

>>7003792
"Dude", no one cares what he doesn't like if his only arguments are "I don't like them" and "infinity isn't real". Seriously, this is juvenile shit and the only people that think he is saying anything worth listening to are retarded edgelords.

>> No.7003815

>>7003803
His argument is that they make no sense, not that he doesn't like them.

>> No.7003820

>>7003815
To normal people they do make sense. His autistic rejection of things he doesn't like is not an argument.

>> No.7003825

>>7003815
Same shit. Can you explain what that means mathematically? Because to me it means nothing. He should either show a contradiction (which he can't) or just move on to constructionism.

>> No.7003827

>>7003815
His arguments make no sense.

>> No.7003828

>>7003815
his assertion is that they make no sense, his argument is "look at this, isn't this weird" which is not very convincing to anyone other than undergrads

>> No.7003834

>>7003820
>>7003825
>>7003827
>>7003828
He's going to talk about set theory and the ZFC axioms soon so maybe we'll learn more about his views there

>> No.7003846

>>7003834
He's just going to say the same shit. What he's doing is going through freshman math while whining about the reals. The only purpose this has is to amaze freshmen. If he had a real argument he would have presented it by now. If he had a real argument then he would have written about it in his "Toasterfish" article. Instead we got a laughable conflation of math with empirical science.

>> No.7003860

>>7003834
This is absolutely irrelevant to math. Math works with only assuming naive set theory.

>> No.7003871

>>7003860
Math also "works" without set theory. So what?

>> No.7003889

>>7003758
>irregardless
maybe you should spend some time in lit

>> No.7003893

>>7003889
"Irregardless" is an acceptable word, you pseudo-intellectual fuckwit. It's in the dictionary.

>> No.7003900

>>7003889
Please don't tell that guy to shit up /lit/ with his faggotry

>> No.7003903

>>7003893
its a bullshit word that means the same as regardless and is only in the dictionary because of lazy plebs

like towards

>> No.7003908

>>7003900
/lit/ is already as shitty as it can be.

>> No.7003921

>>7003893

It's in the dictionary, but only idiots use it.

>> No.7003929

>>7003908
This is wrong, as it would be worse if you posted there.