When I see people mocking NJ Wildberger, I can only say this:

so you're basically a physicist.
Or a chemist maybe?

>worrying about rigor as a mathematician
yeah fuck that

Using the axiom of choice isn't less rigorous.

It is less rigorous though.
>Statement is sometimes true and sometimes false but in general it's obviously false for set theory in general.
>Let's just assume it's always true because we really wish it always were.

#btfo

I doubt it - what kind of physicist gives a shit about what axiomatic system they're working in?
Physicists care about making models of the universe and can never be certain if their current model is really fundamental or just an approximation to something else. This means that rigour doesn't matter to them, as long as they have a logical system that can make predictions to within experimental error bounds they are happy, and that means that their work in insensitive to the system of axioms it is taking place in.

Walk by him everyday, pretty dope guy. 10/10 would have as a lecturer again.

>>Statement is sometimes true and sometimes false but in general it's obviously false for set theory in general.
Except that isn't true at all. The axiom of choice is independent of the other axioms, so it it can't be false.
Your "it's obviously false" statement is the non-rigorous one, not the axiom of choice!

itt: mathematicians ass-devastated that nobody cares about their obscurantist idols proving irrelevant theorems about worthless structures

Famous mathematicians didn't believe many things we now know to be true. Their opinion is based on the best evidence available to them at the time.

"Obviously false" is what everyone says when their intuition is wrong. There's no such thing as obviously false, especially when it's probably not false.

>axiom of choice is "obviously false"
you're retarded

Embarrassingly, that should say "provably not false." Swype fucked me there.

surely you don't belong in this thread then? fuck off

There's something I really don't get about this guy. How does he handle derivation and integration? Limits? Trig functions? Are they all just illogical bunk?

Superfluous

>Mathematicians such as....Ludwig Wittgenstein

Dropped.

he is currently developping his theory in youtube videos.

I cannot tell you how "2016" that this sentence is. It's dumbfounding.

>Mostly a meme, only known because of Perelman.
I was ready to post a lengthy angry response until I read this. Thanks for the chuckle.

his multisets seem to be sets with undecidable equality, so his maths would end up being predicative constructive math, where you have plenty of notions of derivation and integrations.

then why the fuck do you ask if you don't want the answer?

here is his last video
youtube.com/watch?v=vZ5ItJkfLy4
euler didn't just shit everything he created when he was 3 to then spend his life explaining what he had. He just built it little by little.

I didn't ask you fucking mongoloid. I'm commenting on how outlandish it is that he's developing his "work" in a series of YouTube videos.

>how outlandish it is that he's developing his "work" in a series of YouTube videos.

No maaaaan, you just don't get it. The scientific orthodoxy would never allow such radical work to be published in the mainstream. They're just trying to keep his knowledge suppressed, maaaaaaan.

he's just a youtube troll, he does normal math at his university

he has to teach math according to what he's told in uni
he doesn't have to teach the same math on jewtube.

fucking embarassing

btw please feel free to post more wildberger reaction images, I need to fill my folder.

You're right. There's a big benefit of suppressing this knowledge. I just don't know what it is!

>Using an ad hominem
>Not supporting his claim
Ok.

get your pedophile images out of this board. there is a containement board for your kind:

>get your pedophile images out of this board. there is a containement board for your kind:

Do you autists know where the fuck you are right now?

who read his book?

>muh pure math

The Axiom of Choice is obviously true; the Well Ordering Principle is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?

>Veeky Forums - Science & Math

I think Wildberger is hated for the wrong reasons. He is without a doubt very intelligent and knowledgeable in math. He just follows a different philosophy of how math should be. Unfortunate for him, the philosophical debate of math has reached a consensus decades ago.

>>
chan

>He just follows a different philosophy of how math should be. Unfortunate for him, the philosophical debate of math has reached a consensus decades ago.
It's unknown if his approach is even capable of being developed to handle modern problems that calculus covers. My biggest problem with him is spreading his doctrine and distrust of modern math with no guarantee an alternative actually exists. Rational trig is a neat trick, but it's overrated and basically all he has.

math is just a game. if the rules of your game define infinity to exist, it exists.

IIRC, he has done a few videos on calculus. To no surprise he uses algebraic arguments to get past things that involve infinity.

He has one on Lagrange's method which is pretty cool, but it only works for a small domain of functions (rational functions).

The fact that it doesn't work for transcendental functions (without doing infinite processes) really hurts it as you can't solve simple differential equations like y'=y.
And most analysis concepts are completely incompatible (Mean value theorem, intermediate value theorem, extreme value theorem, and the existence of a primitive)

Oh yeah I forgot about that, I think he even comments how he uses lagranges method.

I haven't seen anything that addresses techniques in calculus where you have to use transcendentals.

Solve [math] y' = y [/math] without transcendental functions.
It's one of the easiest and most prevalent different equations to solve, but the solution is a transcendental function.
Or take [math] y'' = y [/math], which is the differential equation for harmonic motion, which shows up everywhere in physics. I wanted to show there was some transform to put this in terms of half-turns (look up his paper on rotor coordinates), but I haven't been successful yet.

too bad we can change the rules of the game

>And most analysis concepts are completely incompatible (Mean value theorem, intermediate value theorem, extreme value theorem, and the existence of a primitive)
these are all retarded theorems that students in classical mathematics are taught.

you can still evaluate the solutions to any precision you want.

saying "this function is called exp" gives no information on the function. It's literally a new name for something that corresponds to nothing rational

>obviously false
How so? If it's so obvious, you should be able to explain here in a sentence or two.

Also, if you're going to argue about what is and isn't rigorous, you're going to need a definition to work with.

> you can still evaluate the solutions to any precision you want.
...that's still the same thing as defining a transcendental function.
This is what you're basically doing in analysis.
Defining the sets of numbers and functions that can be approximated to whatever precision you want.

The whole reason I like his work on rational trig is that you don't need to choose some arbitrary precision.

Yes, you absolutely can, but you can't tell the rest of the world that their rules are "wrong" - you can only attempt to develop an alternative and if you succeed it will spread on its own.

>you can only attempt to develop an alternative and if you succeed it will spread on its own.
tesla would like to disagree.

> implying ac didn't spread despite being actively being denounced

Zorn's lemma is clearly false.

Never said it will spread in your lifetime. Regardless, the internet has made it easier to build a fanclub prematurely, so I would suggest the argument you raise is less of an issue today.

Just like the heliocentric model

Zorn's lemma is true and the AC is retarded

...

>LOL