The end of infinity

Try to argue against this man, you can't. Infinity in mathematics is a fraud perpetuated by mindless undergraduates.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=I0JozyxM1M0

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I agree, but you would be much more credible if you weren't a fucking frogposter.

Socrates would be proud

The end of zero when?

> what OP's video, makes perfect sense
> he's called "crazy"
> watch this video: youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88
> He's called "Genius"

Everything he said makes sense but it wont change a thing as he said himself "authority" wont allow to be changed.

What the actual fuck is the complexity of a number. It's just an integer, so what?

Oh man this guy is bipolar

Do not be alarmed, this frogposter is not dumb

I see what is going on here.

The guy realized that mathematics was all about exploring the limits of the human mind and he wasn't smart enough of that.

Then he saw physics as something that just explores the limits of the universe. Something much simpler. Even a monkey could be a physicist, I hope we can all agree on that.

So now this guy, salty and butthurt, wants to downgrade mathematics to something that explores the limits of the universe, like some kind of weird and pointless abstracted physics.

No thank you, just because you are too stupid for math doesn't mean you get to downgrade all of us with you.

/thread

you aren't smart enough to realize all the bullshit you've been fed.
you are laughable.

His argument is just that infinity cannot exist in the real world.

That's fucking stupid.

yeah. and that everything is poorly defined in mathematics.
Oh and if anything, putting more restrictions makes the math harder, not easier. People who use infinity and "axiom of choice" just take the easy (invalid) way out.

>and that everything is poorly defined in mathematics.

No. This is an implication of infinity not existing. His argument is just that infinity does not exist and then that objects like infinite sets not exist are simply an implication of this notion.

I just finished the video and he says that we can't put the entire natural numbers in a set. His argument was that no, there was not a biggest natural number, but that in the process of writing the bigger ones the process would slow down until it just comes to a halt.

Tell me what part of that is well defined? Tell me what part of that makes sense? That making sets is a physical process.

At 6:00 he makes the assumption that the universe is bounded without giving any kind of evidence apart from muh feels.
If he really disbelieves in the idea of infinity so much then he must conclude that at some point time itself will come to an end, but does that really make any sense?

It really then depends on how you are going to define time, and to have reasonable kind of discussion on the topic, these kinds of definitions of infinite, time and universe should first of all be explained so that everybody is talking about the same thing.

>At 6:00 he makes the assumption that the universe is bounded without giving any kind of evidence apart from muh feels.
arguments are always muh feels outside formal logic

Imaginary numbers cannot exist in the real world.
A perfectly shaped square / triangle is highly unlikely to ever exist in the real world.
Numbers with an infinite number of decimals cannot exist.
At the same time, just to ask for "well-defined" half a glass of water is delirious in so many ways, so you cannot really talk about "easy" fractions either.

Shall I go on or do you understand that just because it does not exist like that in reality does not mean it's an useful concept which enables you to talk about something and get proper results?

See above. Prove or give arguments for why this is / might be wrong, then we can talk about who was fed bullshit here.

He's so stupid (or at least pretending to be) that he should be legally denied access to a camera.

His entire argument is that infinity shouldn't exist in mathematics because it PROBABLY doesn't exist in our universe. He just asserts that there's some big wall you'll run into if you go out far enough. What's on the other side of that wall?

He could have just made a 20 second video that said "It's not useful to discuss the nature of infinity *IF* your goal is to understand physics. If you're interested in purely theoretical mathematics, have at it."

Wrong. He is saying that the concept of infinity is fundamentally flawed and he using real life examples to help stupid people (like yourself) understand. using infinities in mathematics is like using negative lengths or dividing by zero, it's just logically incorrect.

>using negative lengths it's just logically incorrect.
If a function is negative then it is not a norm but that does not make them "logically incorrect".

>dividing by zero it's just logically incorrect.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

you can't possibly name or describe all real numbers if you wanted to.
Therefore there is no point in having all those numbers in the first place, since you would never use them.

>Everything he said makes sense
I disagree. He constructs bizarre stupid ideas (hurr infinite mass make no sense SO ALL OF MODERN MATHEMATICS MUST BE WRONG) and draws childish conclusions from them.
He says many natural numbers cannot be represented. But what about 0? Or negative numbers?

In his fucktarded geometry, a circle centered around the origin and a line going through the origin may not intersect (because HURR IRRATIONAL NUMBERS SCARE ME)

All the real numbers can be described (test me) and the goal of math isn't to be useful.

comin fresh out of real analysis I see

Infinity is real

Using negative lengths is not logically incorrect.
For example I was -8 inches from your mom last night

using your mathematics, the number of descriptions and names you can give is aleph0, while the number of real numbers is aleph1.

Those aren't real numbers. Anyway aleph-one can be described as the cardinality of the powerset of any set with a cardinality of aleph-naught.

>those aren't real numbers
no shit, no one said they were

>Anyway aleph-one can be described as the cardinality of the powerset of any set with a cardinality of aleph-naught.
only if the continuum hypothesis is true.
Jesus christ user.

>you can't possibly name or describe all real numbers if you wanted to.
>All the real numbers can be described
>using your mathematics, the number of descriptions and names you can give is aleph0
>Those aren't real numbers
>no shit, no one said they were

>only if the continuum hypothesis is true.
It still can be described as the cardinal of the smallest infinite set not in one-to-one correspondence with a set of cardinality aleph-naught. Regardless of the continuum hypothesis being true or false.

>200 hours in ms paint

>Imaginary numbers cannot exist in the real world.
But they do.

does he believe in circles? theyre a set of infinite points right?

>nobody will get the reference

Oh, that's cute.
He argues that the fundamental theorem of arithmetic doesn't hold, as when having fixed a language, you can't write down the prime factors of integers with low Kolmogorov complexity (e.g the ones expressible as hyper-exponents).

Dude, my favourite movie, got it immediately.

Math is just ideas, how can an idea not exist?
OP is fucking retarded and I don't even care if it's bait

>but does that really make any sense?
For time to be over, there must be some other time to count our time.

>exploring the limits of the human mind
This is Physics, dumbass.

>exploring the limits of the human mind
>Physics

...

In the past he's drawn graphs and said that although there's only two points (rational solutions to the corresponding equation), the graph includes approximate rational solutions for illustrative purposes. I'd imagine he has a similar view on graphs representing circles

Here's a challenge for people that believe in uncountable infinities (we'll get to countable infinity later).

Tell me how to compute 5 (five) different kinds of irrational number.
When I say kinds, I mean that you can't use both the square root of two and the square root of five for example.

I'll wait.

His rebuff of the various models of the reals came down to muh feels, and in the entire video he failed to make a substantive argument against any of them

Complex rational 'numbers'(in his universe limit) can be described perfectly in this world. 1/3 can be described finitely in it's decimal expansion i.e. 0.3 reoccurring.

I believe his arguments about the existence of real numbers and infinity do make sense.

As for the tools opened up by accepting infinities I think he proposed finite alternatives that are more intuitive and 'simple'. If he hasn't then we just stick to current mathematics.

root 2, pi, e, sin(1), and Apery's constant are all different 'kinds' of irrational that are computable in the usual sense

>muh feels
Surprise! All definitions in mathematics are about feels.

We define the integral the way we do because it gives us what we expect on a small set of inputs and because it has certain nice properties.

One can never prove that a definition is correct. (of course you can prove that a definition is incorrect insofar as it leads to absurdities such as the Banach-Tarski paradox)

Not bad my man.
The point I'm trying to make is of course that almost all real numbers are not computable.

as I told someone earlier in the thread, you can't even describe or name all real numbers, let alone compute them.

That's a retarded way of attempting to make that point. This leads me to believe you don't even know what the point you're trying to make means.

The guy you're talking about (in OPs video) has a PhD in math and is a professor.

...

I know exactly what the claim means.

I just think it's a fun exercise. When people learn about real numbers, they usually just learn that linear combinations of roots of prime numbers, pi, and e are examples. Discussing only these examples makes the real numbers seem much more reasonable than they are.

I don't think anyone has a clear picture of a noncomputable number, even though they make up almost all of the real numbers (meaning that only a measure 0, in this case countable, subset of the reals is computable).

>The point I'm trying to make is of course that almost all real numbers are not computable.
but do you even need those?

>but do you even need those?
then why assume they exist in the first place?

but in daily practice, are they used at all ?

Because mathematics doesn't give a fuck about applications, and that's a good thing, because it can't turn out that something does have an application if no one studies it.

Almost definitionally no.

That's why the real numbers are poorly constructed. The real numbers are a set where almost no member can be computed to a given precision in finitely many steps.
It's quite natural to ask how one constructs a set whose members cannot, in a certain sense, be constructed in general.
The answer is that one constructs such a set by doing sloppy math with a bad axiom.

Extremely underrated post

I'm a big believer in mathematical platonism, but whether or not the math can be applied is beside the point in this discussion.

The point is that the use of the axiom of choice in real analysis leads to obvious contradictions and allows for the construction of a set that is almost entirely nonsense.

If the universe is infinite then doesn't the concept of infinity have a place in mathematics?

All of mathematics is approximation. The only people who don't believe this are mathematicians.

MAGIC ISN'T REAL, YOU ARE JUST PRETENDING, IT'S NOT REAL.

>All of mathematics is approximation. The only people who don't believe this are mathematicians.
You mean physicists? Mathematicians don't give a fuck if it's real or not.

30 seconds in and this is already gold.

I do give a fuck. Wildberger does too.
Your mathematics is watered down.

You're either a shitty math major or you're calling yourself a mathematician because you know calculus. Fuck off.

Wildberger wants us to go back to counting sticks and stones. He seems to only believe in what his sensory perceptions makes tangible...if it is not tangible it is not real, or if it does not makes sense to Wildberger it is not real. I do wonder if Wildberger have ever had an abstract thought in his life.

Damn, I didn't realize how fucking senile Steve Martin had become.

>if it's not tangible it's not real
Sounds quite reasonable to me

>if I diminish him and tell him to fuck off the problem will disappear. I am saved now and can go back circlejerking with the others.

Shit, I remember watching a few videos from that guy. The mental gymnastics he went through to avoid using the reals were almost funny.

The same mental gymnastics current mathematicians are too lazy to do to deal with the problems in mathematics.

But all of them have a name. A name of infinite lenght. And that's a description.

What, are you sad for making a mistake over and over again? The limits of a clock, or of any mechanism is within Physics, and so is your 20W brain. I am sorry if I just made you look stupid by telling you the truth.

no it's not.

He's a *beeping* rational-approximationist. He only does applied math. Can't give you the real answer.

is this guy the bill gaede of math?

Real numbers:
In "decimal" notation write
[any Z].[every_digit_forever] in any base.
To compute a finite number of real numbers to finite precision:
[random Z].[random digit added to the string the finite precision requested times]

Oh, there are infinities in the real world. The acceleration of light and other particles with no rest mass.

The old infinity stuff is wrong. They taught that if you matched up the small numbers it would just keep going.
W=N+1; if you count down from the big end there is one more number in the whole numbers. It's not the same size, other than zero they are the exact same numbers, forever.
Z=W+N=2N+1; if you count towards zero from the extreme ends there is "zero" left.

F-ing math regressive. I'm still watching the video.