When I see people mocking NJ Wildberger, I can only say this:
Mathematicians such as L. E. J. Brouwer, Per Martin-Löf, Errett Bishop, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Henri Poincaré, Carl Friedrich Gauss and Leopold Kronecker didn't believe infinity existed. (as an axiom)
Many others such as Bertrand Russell doubted the existence of infinity in various forms and fought against the axioms of the mainstream mathematical community.
But you think you are smart enough to judge people who don't want to use the axiom of inifiity?
>belief >existence It's like you're completely out of out with modern mathematics.
>people who don't want to use the axiom of infinity It's not that he likes to not use it, he advocates everyone else do the same, and that everyone who uses it is doing bad math. That's completely different from what you said. It's like you've never even watched his videos. Or you're retarded.
David Hill
>implying the people who mock NJ Wildberger know anything about formal logic. I'd be surprised if any had even finished high school.
Carter Nguyen
>L. E. J. Brouwer >Per Martin-Löf >Errett Bishop >Leopold Kronecker Literally who?
>Ludwig Wittgenstein Not a mathematician.
>Henri Poincaré Mostly a meme, only known because of Perelman.
>Carl Friedrich Gauss I'll give you this one, though he was working without the hindsight of centuries of mathematics.
Aaron Morgan
>Literally who?
how is high school?
Joshua Lopez
>Literally who?
>Mostly a meme, only known because of Perelman.
Go show off your ignorance elsewhere, faggot.
Caleb Long
>But you think you are smart enough to judge people who don't want to use the axiom of inifiity? Yes
Sebastian Ross
>>Henri Poincaré >Mostly a meme, only known because of Perelman. Yeah, leaving pure mathematics aside, it's not like Special Relativity exists or anything.
William Hill
...
Jayden Murphy
>use axiom of choice/infinity >get results
>shackle yourself by not using the axiom of choice/infinity >you spend more time worrying about the math that you can't do than the math that you could otherwise do
seriously did Wildberger come up with a different definition of derivative without limits? Or are we just supposed to ignore that operator entirely in his system?
Jonathan Bell
so you're basically a physicist. Or a chemist maybe?
Carter Morris
>worrying about rigor as a mathematician yeah fuck that
Isaac White
Using the axiom of choice isn't less rigorous.
Liam Williams
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.
Camden Wood
#btfo
Carter Smith
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.
Austin Hill
Walk by him everyday, pretty dope guy. 10/10 would have as a lecturer again.
Jack Wright
>>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!
Charles Wood
itt: mathematicians ass-devastated that nobody cares about their obscurantist idols proving irrelevant theorems about worthless structures
Angel Howard
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.
Dominic Jackson
"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.
Christopher Morales
>axiom of choice is "obviously false" you're retarded
Cooper Hall
Embarrassingly, that should say "provably not false." Swype fucked me there.
Carson Thompson
surely you don't belong in this thread then? fuck off
Brody Watson
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?
Grayson Rivera
Superfluous
Jackson Martin
>Mathematicians such as....Ludwig Wittgenstein
Dropped.
Noah Diaz
he is currently developping his theory in youtube videos.
Easton Gonzalez
I cannot tell you how "2016" that this sentence is. It's dumbfounding.
Parker Lewis
>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.
Christopher Cox
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.
Joseph Thomas
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.
Caleb Ross
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.
Aiden Flores
>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.
Noah Rogers
he's just a youtube troll, he does normal math at his university
Zachary Morris
he has to teach math according to what he's told in uni he doesn't have to teach the same math on jewtube.
Gavin Powell
fucking embarassing
Asher Richardson
btw please feel free to post more wildberger reaction images, I need to fill my folder.
Nicholas Hernandez
You're right. There's a big benefit of suppressing this knowledge. I just don't know what it is!
Mason Watson
>Using an ad hominem >Not supporting his claim Ok.
Thomas Sanders
get your pedophile images out of this board. there is a containement board for your kind:
Ryder Cox
>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?
Aaron Adams
who read his book?
Dylan Ward
>muh pure math
Jaxon Torres
The Axiom of Choice is obviously true; the Well Ordering Principle is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?
Jayden Thomas
>Veeky Forums - Science & Math
Chase Morales
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.
Isaac Hill
>> chan
Jayden Morgan
>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.
Liam Bell
math is just a game. if the rules of your game define infinity to exist, it exists.
Hudson Turner
IIRC, he has done a few videos on calculus. To no surprise he uses algebraic arguments to get past things that involve infinity.
Luis Allen
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)
Colton Smith
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.
Wyatt Murphy
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.
David Fisher
too bad we can change the rules of the game
Aaron Jones
>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.
Adam Ward
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
Jeremiah Taylor
>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.
Joshua Brooks
> 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.
Kevin Diaz
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.
Nathaniel Jackson
>you can only attempt to develop an alternative and if you succeed it will spread on its own. tesla would like to disagree.
Jordan Myers
> implying ac didn't spread despite being actively being denounced
Jeremiah Barnes
Zorn's lemma is clearly false.
Samuel Walker
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.