/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9714392]

> Rational parameterization of the circle
> Euclidean construction of multiplication of roots of unity
> The Stern-Brocot tree and algebraic numbers
> The fundamental DREAM of algebra
> Quadrance
> Calculates Bernoulli numbers by solving Pascal's triangle as a matrix
> The ILLUSION of infinite groups
> polynumbers/vexels/maxels

What is your favorite NJWildberger redpill

[Anonymous No.9714465]

The reals are real, fuck him

[Anonymous No.9714499]

The renunciation of the crapxioms.

[Anonymous No.9714583]

[Anonymous No.9714745]

>>9714583

You could construct whatever you are doing differently.

[Anonymous No.9714848]

>>9714392
>> The fundamental DREAM of algebra
Wait a minute... he actually doubts the FTA?

[Anonymous No.9716235]

>>9714392
Imagine living in a world without the intermediate value theorem

[Anonymous No.9716269]

>>9714583
Why would that be counterintuitive?

[Anonymous No.9716276]

>>9716269
2d representation of 3d objects.

[Anonymous No.9716295]

>>9716269
They would intersec at a point x=1/sqrt(2)=y whichbis irrational.

[Anonymous No.9716307]

>>9716295
Well then the line must not go from (-1,-1) to (1,1)

[Anonymous No.9716311]

>>9716307
Yea, but Wildberger doesn't believe in irrational numbers. Lurk more.

[Anonymous No.9716482]

>>9714848
It's a """theorem""" with no proof that holds up to any proper standard.

[Anonymous No.9716493]

>>9716482

Its been proven. Gauss > Wildberger.

[Anonymous No.9716507]

>>9716493
Watch Wildberger BTFO of your hero and cry buddy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSZsTeO-C1o

[Anonymous No.9716522]

>>9716507
>Unfortunately, both FTA(I) ...
Hmm, really? Interesting, let's read on.
>Their many proofs ...
How so professor? Surely he will demonstrate their incompleteness later though.
>Even the current statements ...
What do you mean by that? Don't we construct theorems how we want to?
>(they rest on a prior understanding of 'real numbers')
MOM, HE'S DOING IT AGAIN

[Anonymous No.9716531]

>>9716295
>>9714583

They would intersect

He'd use an argument based in euclidean geometry

[Anonymous No.9716551]

polynumbers really blow my mind desu

[Anonymous No.9716679]

>>9716507
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSZsTeO-C1o [Embed]
I love this guy

[Anonymous No.9716726]

>>9716531
So this would mean his rational parametrization of a circle is worthless, because it gives only measure-zero set of points and omitts almost all points on the circle, which do exist, as follows from axioms of Euclid

[Anonymous No.9716733]

>>9716507
How so? You can prove it using loops on [math]S^1[/math] and winding number, no reals required

[Anonymous No.9716785]

>>9716726
You cannot even define the natural numbers using euclidean geometry.

[Anonymous No.9716796]

>>9716785

You can.

> wtf is the field of constructable numbers and how did N get in there?

[Anonymous No.9716803]

>>9716796
Okey, define that ONLY using euclidean geometry.

[Anonymous No.9716822]

>>9716803

Well, it's just any point on the plane you can get to using a ruler and a compass starting with two points of distance 1 apart.

It's definition follows from Euclid's axioms directly.

[Anonymous No.9716825]

>>9716733
Prove the existence of S1, my friend.

[Anonymous No.9716879]

>>9716822
>distance 1
Lol that is something you are not going to find anywhere in the elements you retard. A graded ruler is not part of pure euclidean geometry.

[Anonymous No.9716881]

>>9716825
Not saying
>>9716733
Is not wrong, but S^1 is just the circle. The problems go much more deepet than that. How in the hell is he going to define a loop and many other shit without the reals.

[Anonymous No.9716900]

>>9716507
Based Wilberger. Probably within 500m of me since I’m at his uni near the math buulding

[Anonymous No.9716909]

>>9714392
>What is your favorite NJWildberger redpill

his axiom that real numbers run out around ^100

[Anonymous No.9716951]

>>9714392

[Anonymous No.9717743]

>>9716879

No, but the euclidean metric is a thing

[Anonymous No.9717764]

>>9714392
i go to unsw ask me anything

[Anonymous No.9718092]

>>9717764
have you talked with wildberger

[Anonymous No.9718109]

>>9718092
nah

[Anonymous No.9718129]

>>9716951
wtf is this supposed to mean? he doesn't believe uncountable sets are a thing?
Cantor was way smarter than this guy, just look at that bushy neckbeard.

[Anonymous No.9718130]

>>9717743
Whis uses the real numbers, you retard.

[Anonymous No.9718133]

>>9718109
Have you SEEN Wildberger?

[Anonymous No.9718351]

>>9718129
cantor was an institutionalized mental case lmao. that should tell you all about him.

[Anonymous No.9718366]

>the reals don't exist
inconsequential

[Anonymous No.9718370]

There is a link between this sort of discrete thinking and the rise of computer science

[Anonymous No.9718721]

>>9718130

But it refers to Euclids notion of distance

[Anonymous No.9719106]

>>9718721
which is meaningless without reals

[Anonymous No.9719151]

Wildburger is the Varg Vikernes of mathematics

[Anonymous No.9719174]

>>9719151
So he's a retarded joke?

[Anonymous No.9719190]

>>9719151
>10% interesting ideas, 90% kook bullshit
pretty good analogy

[Anonymous No.9719396]

>>9718133
nah

[Anonymous No.9719444]

Why is it becomen a recurrent thing today to """"""""""disprove"""""""""" modern science as with the flat earth nonsense and all sorts of retards claiming all kinds of beyond stupid shit like pi is 3.125, "new calculus" nonsense and the likes of this idiot whoms head is to fucking small to even grasp thr concept of infinity? Seriously, what the fuck is going on?

[Anonymous No.9719453]

>>9718721
Brainlets amaze me.

[Anonymous No.9719581]

>>9719444
A few things.
- Brainlets are intimidated by thinking and evidence. It means their go-to option (opinion) can be invalidated, and that's threatening.
- The religious folks don't understand that the absence of evidence of God does not mean there is no God. So they fear if they succumb to science, they will lose faith.
- They will lose influence if shown to be wrong. So it is their interest to reduce the effect science has on thinking individuals (while ironically calling people who adhere to laws of science "sheeple"),
- Posting on 4Chan is anonymous, so it's easy to get away with being retarded. There is no personal consequence to displaying stupidity, but you might sway a loser on the way. Some idiots carry this into the real world, and they then complain about being 'persecuted" for their "opinions," being too stupid to realize the difference between stupid and annoyingly willful ignorance.
- Trolls. There are so many that are just trolls. They are pretty easily identified by their tactic of taunting, rather than putting forth arguments. And there are a *lot* of trolls. It's easy and fun.

[Anonymous No.9719607]

>>9719444
Please don't associate Wildberger with flat earth / pi is rational / new calculus cranks. He is rigorous and scientific.

[Anonymous No.9719792]

What I dislike of wildberger is his idea that our theoretical number system is bounded by our physical universe as he says that eventually N must end because numbers get so big they don't represent anything in our universe. Why not just make N finite but extendable?

[Anonymous No.9719874]

>>9719607
he's not rigorous at all

[Anonymous No.9719922]

>>9719607
You must be trolling. He thinks that a straight line intersecting with a circle is counterintuitive and this imposible because the intersection points are irrational numbers. Im pretty sure that claim was posted on this very thread.

[Anonymous No.9719996]

>>9719922
>>9714583

[Anonymous No.9720013]

>>9719922
Any actual source on him saying this or are you really just taking 4chan posts at face value.

[Anonymous No.9720554]

>>9719922

The point is that it's not intuitive. Math isn't intuitive (see: combinatorics, classification of finite simple groups, fractals, etc.). This is a better construction because it breaks our prior assumptions about what properties a circle has.

This is why the rationally parameterized circle is a redpill.

[Anonymous No.9720566]

>>9720554
Fucking kill yourself.
I really fucking hate niggers.

[Anonymous No.9720580]

>>9719874
He is. He just tries to construct math without the axiom of infinity you retard.
>>9719922
>Analogies and intuitive arguments are the core if his views
You can disagree with his philosophical stakdings and how interesting is his outlook, but his math is sound even if its not orthodox.

[Anonymous No.9720596]

>>9720566
.
Good double

[Anonymous No.9720803]

>>9720580
have you watched any of his videos, you moron?
his "rigorous" proof that multiplication of naturals is commutative was to draw couple rows of balls and say "just flip it lol"
his "rigorous" definition of natural numbers was just as bunch of strokes on a blackboard
his "rigorous" math is just formulating some basic facts and intuitions about high school maths, there's nothing rigorous about that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xpb9Z3yEQc
and it's interesting to see a finitist rejecting the axiom of infinity constructing an infinite sequence (and giving it some retarded name like polynumber onsequence) and talking about their limits at infinity

[Anonymous No.9720812]

>>9720803
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/papers.htm If you want a proper development, read his articles you moron. The videos aren't inteded to be his full development. And read his rational trig book.

[Anonymous No.9721176]

>>9720580
only not retarded post in this thread, NJW isn't a tenured professor who performs research for no reason, even if he's edgy as fuck.

[Anonymous No.9721703]

>>9720803
His videos are for lay people and for discussing his philosophical disagreements. He has actually developed these theories.

>>9720580
If I remember correctly, one of the roots of his arguments is that you cannot actually compute the addition of two numbers with infinite decimals, which to him is necessarily a flaw in mathematics, among other such things. That's where he philosophically disagrees with the axiom of infinity. It annoys me that rather than stating that, that is where he has a philosophical disagreement, he chalks it up as an inherent flaw in modern mathematics, marketing his videos to say that his approach is somehow the "real" way mathematics should be done. It leads the untrained lay person to think that not rejecting the axiom of infinity is then mathematically unsound. I might say he takes math too seriously.

[Anonymous No.9721713]

>>9720013
It is true that in the rational plane, the line segment y = x will not intersect the circle.

[Anonymous No.9721723]

>>9716507
The FTA just says that the complex numbers is an algebraically closed field. Wildberger says the rationals are not contained in an algebraically closed field if you do not assume the axiom of infinity. If you do assume so, the rationals, you get that the rationals are contained in the complex numbers which can be demonstrated to be algebraically complete. This isn't hard and no one is being BTFO.

[Anonymous No.9721730]

>>9714583
Of course they intersect. You can zoom in and see the exact pixel where it happens. If you're talking about some kind of platonic mumbo jumbo perfect circle then I'm afraid to say it doesn't exist.