Does Veeky Forums has a real argument against wildberger?

It does not take infinite information to represent an irrational, it takes infinite information to calculate the decimal form. You can represent the square root of two as "the square root of two" or even as the algorithm that calculates the square root of two. The confusion of reality with representations seems to be a recurrent flaw in Wildberger's rhetoric.

And no mathematician would define infinity as the largest number you can think of.

I'm who you responded to.

>accept the fact that there are some problem with our R
These are clashes between your intuition and the results of these axioms. Problems imply self-inconsistency.

>For instance the representation of an infinitely long, arbitrary number a is simply not possible (at least with our way of writing numbers) because there are simply an infinite amount of information that we need to put to represent it.
This is not a problem, it is a fact.

>What is an infinity? It's the largest number that I can think of.
Your definition is wrong. Infinity is not a number.

>I may never be able to write the whole a, but I can take the approximation of it to whatever degree I need it.
Cool, that's what an infinite series does, it allows you to take an approximation to whatever degree you choose. Isn't it nicer to manipulate an expression under every degree of accuracy you could want before restricting yourself to one?

>A wild burger used triggering

he's a jew

>look for arguments against wildberger
>ignore them all
>shitpost on sci
>-if people don't answer me here, I win

>or instance the representation of an infinitely long, arbitrary number a is simply not possible (at least with our way of writing numbers) because there are simply an infinite amount of information that we need to put to represent it.

That's not true at all.

Yep, I sure do, OP :)

quora.com/Is-N-J-Wildberger-a-joke-or-a-genius-when-he-claims-that-mathematics-in-its-current-form-is-a-hoax

I'll post some for you:

Emily Czinege, Bioinformathematician:
"Tl;dr As far as I can see, his frameworks are kind-of rigorous, but his objections to standard calculus are moot and his own definitions are too restricted, avoiding real numbers and infinite sets. In essence, he builds a new maths on intuition instead of set theory, making for some superficial rigor, but removing the power of mathematics. He basically reinvents set theory in a more intuitive but less general way."

David Joyce, Professor of Mathematics at Clark University:
"It's the 16th [video], "why infinite sets don't exist" where it should get interesting, but it doesn't. He offers no actual criticism of infinite sets, but does mention that there were mathematicians that rejected them when they were originally proposed. In the 17th he describes very large numbers and concludes with the statement: "There's no right that we have to say that we have to say we understand all the natural numbers. We don't. And there's no need to pretend that we do." I don't find that a serious concern. Whenever I study a new topic I don't understand much of anything about it, but I don't reject it due to my ignorance. You can't use ignorance to justify the existence or nonexistence of something."

>like a real one and not just bachelors opinions?

welcome to Veeky Forums. There are FAQ's posted on the home page. There's other boards too. the acronyms on top are links to some of them.

Hans Hyttel, Associate Professor:
N.J. Wildberger is neither a joke nor a genius. It appears to me that he is re-discovering some ideas from constructive mathematics and is relating them to the teaching of mathematics. Not only is there a link to Brouwer's intuitionism, but Wildberger's worries about infinite sets also appear to be related to the finitism of Leopold Kronecker.

In other words: The concerns are legitimate but they have already been addressed a long time ago (and, in my opinion, much more convincingly), about 100 years ago when mathematics was undergoing its so-called foundational crisis. See the exposition by Evan Warner from Stanford for more about this.

What is new in Wildberger's work is – as far as I can tell – his concern about how a constructive approach to maths should influence how we teach the subject.

>real argument
No, but I have a rational one.

But rational numbers are real numbers?

Have, not has. Got to keep your tense right. Unless you use a z at the end and say it ironically like one of those dumb cat pictures

are oyu confident that we can represent ALL the number between (0,1) using some algorithm or some f(x) that maps N->R???

For an infinitely long and arbitrary number b, wouldn't it be impossible to fully create an algorithm that "contain" the whole b

unless it's proven that we are definitely able to.

Actual undergraduate majoring in mathematics here.

I will assume that "wildberger" will represent his argument against the existence of natural numbers and we'll be working in naive set theory, because ZFC includes the axiom of infinity and because most of Wildberger's work is intuitivist anyway.

One of the easiest ways to construct any natural number is to assume induction (the "if P(n) then P(n+1) kind of induction). We can with both intuitivist and formalist notions argue that a finite set S can be a part of a larger set, and that S can have natural numbers as it's members. However, we run into problems here because induction is equivalent with the claim that every finite subset of naturals contains a maximal element, and this in turn is the Zorn's Lemma and I assume Wildberger has nightmares about it so we have to think about something else.

Notice that our assumption of the existence of naturals is as hand wavey as most of Wildbergers work besides from rational trigonometry which I personally recommend, at least the free introductionary part - Wildberger would most likely admit Zorn's Lemma for finite sets, but at the same time we propose S being part of a possibly infinite set and we do not want that. We must propose that objects like natural numbers have some shared properties, and the group of all those objects form the set "natural numbers".

Now at this point we all must ask the questions "when does this end" and "where's the funny part" much like when we watch the actual guy do thirty minute videos about consecutive vertical lines or whatever else he likes to associate with "numbers". I propose that you should learn about a guy named Rudolf Steiner and his education methods like painted magic stones and arrythmical dancing. As Wildberger too likes to educate differently, it's really a question about who can produce the highest quality mega autists rather than a question of whether we recognize the existence of square root of two.

Wildberger is a retard.

>ever finite set of naturals contains a maximal element is Zorn's lemma
no. this is a consequence of ZF without infinity or foundation. it's very weak.
I suggest you get your shit together before you go calling professors "autists"

Some you can represent, some you can't.

With the definition of "more" given set theory, there are more things that we call real numbers than you can represent.

Only vacuously, since the set of real numbers doesn't exist.

If I checked goldbach conjecture up to 10^200, would wildburger consider it proven?