Infinity is dead

not sure, I guess he has a terrible taste in music, that would also explain why he's using a drumstick for his presentations.

>mfw us normans don't

Because you're a fucking idiot that doesn't understand how the notion of infinity is used in math.

All it is is a fancy way of saying that we can use numbers to control errors to any degree desirable. It's an approximation tool in real analysis, and please, for the love of God explain to me how you can believe in the integers and not believe that there are infinitely many of them. They're modeling tools, dumb bitch cunt faggot motherfucking bitch

> They're modeling tools, dumb bitch cunt faggot motherfucking bitch

damn son

>infinity is a modeling tool
what do you model with that you retarded piece of soiled floor covered in cantorian shit?
Does anything you use in this world involve any infinity?
I didn't think so either.

Gud samefag friendo.

because modern math is a clown show.

What says it doesn't?

youtube.com/watch?v=I0JozyxM1M0
>The Law of (_Logical_) Honesty
Don't pretend that you can do something that you cannot.

God my sides are in orbit.

*extended reals

OP wants us to watch TWO AND A HALF HOURS of Wildberger to have the slightest clue what his argument is. Fuck off until you learn to present your own arguments.

I think the big chunk of the argument was in the last video, yes I watched all of them.

Wildberger is a pretty interesting guy.

I watched the video. For the most part I fail to see how this disagrees with typical usage of "infinity" - a good Calc course is very careful with limits and convergence and emphasizing that the symbol represents these concepts but should be used carefully.

Seems to be mostly focused on construction without shit like Dedekind cuts, which I'm not against, but I was expecting more than 25 minutes of ranting about infinite sets.

Following up: I checked his blog post and he thinks convergent sums are invalid. I have no idea anymore. My mind is full of fuck.

Infinitists blown the fuck out

Well probably because of He thinks that if he cannot do it then he won't use it.

If you think that spending 2 and a half hours researching a position before forming an opinion about it is too much, then I seriously doubt that you have actually tried to form serious opinions about any controversial thing in your life.

2 1/2 hours watching one particular person is a bit much.

That's why they have things called abstracts.

I'm on an imageboard talking to uneducated teenagers. No, I'm not going to put 2.5 hours into finding out what in the fuck your position even is. The "lectures" were almost entirely rhetoric anyway, and there certainly was no alternative presented. I'd call you autistic, but if you were, you wouldn't be so fucking asinine.

2 and a half hours researching a Veeky Forums meme is a little much

That's fine. Just admit that your opinion is uneducated and emotion-based. Just be honest with yourself and don't do things that you can't do

Fourier transforms, pdfs, and the number of times I can nail your mom in a row to name a few.

>I'm le smarter than the rest because I watch wildberger on youtube obsessively.
Learn to make your own arguments without deferring to your idol to make them for you. That way, I can use the thousands of hours of research I have done that is not "watching youtube" to argue your specific point, instead of putting 2.5 hours into guessing what your point even is.

I watched the videos, I think it's a very interesting argument. By considering every possible combination of symbols of finite length, you are fundamentally unable to reference every number no matter what.

This concept is not new. You already need to "use infinity" to even define Reals. No one is ever "carrying out" an infinite process, it is an abstraction.

In other words, what does stating this bring us? You can wish for alternatives, but without having them, it's pointless to complain on the internet that limits cannot be carried out literally.

>Does anything you use in this world involve any infinity?
I'm pretty sure space is infinite. Even if it is of finite extent, it still has infinitely many points.

No respectable physicist believes the expanse of space is infinite, and many theories are trying to quantize space which would mean it does not have infinitely many points.

It surprises me that someone who's into Grothendieckian ideas would say "space has points" :)

I, for one, am not a physical realist and I don't think there's much real (in the strongest sense) about any of the notions in our theories (there are hardly any you'd want to take serious to begin with, tbqh), but I'm pretty sure that a more accurate theory about space is one which looks less like general relativity and more like
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncommutative_quantum_field_theory
and that one doesn't points, really.

Regarding Wildberger, he seemingly wants to restrict the non-constructive power of the axiomatic method for no good reason - I mean applied stuff it's been done and I don't see why focusing more on it would make the world a better place - but I think he's a handsome old dude and he explains well. Some things are watchable.

Well, I do think there's much real (in the strongest sense) about any of the notions in our theories.

What are you going to do about it?

Go design a better lawn mower you pleb.

Infinity is the evolutionary result of identifying patterns so it makes a lot of sense that it wouldn't exist in the *real* world.

Of curse inf is a mess, just look at the "genius" of Cantor (who invented it): youtube.com/watch?v=km9Xa8MODYM at 18:35

Yeah, but his argument isn't really about that, since [math]\infty[/math] is a single symbol and has only finitely many ways you combine it with the finite number of other symbols you have at your disposal to get to any numbers.

to me it seems a lot of mathematicians solve this infinity problem by just adding three dots to a set of numbers...

Well, still, the better theories to describe reality will most likely look like differential geometry, where manifolds can be modeled as sets of elements that represent points in space (time)

It is possible to believe the Peano axioms to be inconsistent, but only if you believe all models of Robinson arithmetic to be nonstandard.

In other words, if you believe every model of arithmetic has infinite descending chains.

Of course, even if you believe the latter, you can still believe PA to be consistent. There exist nonstandard models of PA.

Also, even if all models of arithmetic are nonstandard, if you believe in the consistency of ZF you believe in the consistency of PA.

So basically you have to be really daft to reject PA. You have to both reject set theory and visualize the natural numbers as having an infinite descending chain.