So-called """"Real Numbers""""

this is the most important slide in all of his videos

the most retarded axiom is the powerset axiom

He's not wrong, though, as this is where all of mathematics begins. Epic quad 5s, btw

quads wills it

>MATHEMATICS ISNT RIGOROUS ENOUGH!
>defines natural numbers as strokes on a fucking board
>mfw

>this is where all of mathematics begins.

No, this is where his mathematics begin. No one except for him accepts that as the foundation of mathematics. But he is right, the usual set theory stuff is not intuitive or anything like the way we actually use natural numbers, but it is good enough.

No he literally says in the picture he defines them as msets of marks, get it right retard

Seems more intuitive to me

> implying reals aren't rigorous enough is his main complaint

It's where all mathematics prior to the late 19th century, and almost all mathematics taught afterwards, begins.

But that means nothing. He is the only one who uses that definition.

When I saw that video I even googled msets to see if that was an actual thing other mathematicins use and I could not find a single thing, so I assume he invented that too.

msets and his definition do not exist in consensus mathematics, so to the average student it means nothing and should mean nothing.

Other than that, I think it is so simplistic that is is lacking. For example, before set theory and foundations, how would you tell that 1 < 2? How would you argument for that.

>Well, one is clearly a smaller number
But why?
>Well, if I start from zero and then count to one it takes less counts than when counting from zero to 2
Okay, but isn't that presuming that such a thing as counting exists? Also, what does it mean to reach a number by counting?

Now, in his mset definition, how would you tell that 1 < 2?

>Well, clearly 1 has less strokes than 2
Less? How could you define an order of numbers before defining the numbers?

And in beautiful beautiful set theory, how would you prove that 1 is indeed smaller than 2?

>Using the method of construction, construct both 1 and 2 and observe that 1 is contained in 2 (After set operations are defined) so it must be smaller. (or we could define it as a bigger but then our usual order relations whould simply flip around, which would be the same really)

tbqh the set theory explanation makes more sense. Define propositional logic, then define sets and then define sets we recognize and numbers, and if a set contains another one then it must be bigger than the one it contains (or we could agree that it is smaller, but whatever).

He didn't invent the concept of multisets, also for ordering: youtube.com/watch?v=Puk-ipOTiD4

Relevant part in case you don't watn to watch the hwole thing: youtu.be/Puk-ipOTiD4?t=751

An extremely simple and intuitive way to order the naturals

>He didn't invent the concept of multisets
Huh, I found nothing back when I googled it. Weird.

Will watch.

GO AWAY REALS

Can someone explain this meme to me please?

[IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII]

he re-discover predicative constructive mathematics, where equality of elements of sets is not decidable

Why the hell are people still posting this every day?

That faggot cannot even use terms correctly. He says '"real numbers" when he means irrationals.

Man, think of the video titles, "Irrationals are not rational!" No one could even refute him.

Wildberger says real numbers a shit.

Real numbers seems to be more of a catch-all phrase

ITT: undergrads gets triggered when a PHD redpill them.

Stop.

This is one of the few good memes on Veeky Forums.

He doesn't have any videos like this to my knowledge

GO AWAY REALS

This is related to Wildberger's argument.

We don't know what an infinite sided shape looks like, It is regularly assumed that an infinite sided shape is a circle, but that assumes that we know the infinite(or that it exists metaphysically or physically) when we don't.

> We don't know what an infinite sided shape looks like,
it doesn't exist
> It is regularly assumed that an infinite sided shape is a circle
only by idiots who don't understand limits
> but that assumes that we know the infinite when we don't.
It's not that difficult. Read a book nigger

>mfw an illiterate pleb ironically uses "angle" near me

GO AWAY REALS
Based wbrgr