Only about 6 more hours
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
pewforum.org
twitter.com
Oh god yes thanks for reminding me. This is gonna be so embarrassing, it'll be great.
>This is gonna be so embarrassing, it'll be great.
Goldbach Conjecture
Pf:
- There does not exist any natural number > 10^200
- Thus problem is trivial computation.
QED
H Y P E D
Y
P
E
D
3 HOURS BEFORE ENTIRE MATHEMATICAL WORLD BTFO
How long will it last?
10^200 seconds
[math] \sqrt{2} [/math] seconds
a finite number of moments
what is this?
what is going on, I want to point and laugh too
Is someone claiming to have a proof for goldbach's conjecture?
>Is someone claiming to have a proof for goldbach's conjecture?
Not just someone m8. Wildberger himself.
He's a mathematician who claims the reals and infinity don't exist. Never mind the fact that we can define them, he says they don't exist because they don't exist in the physical world.
I bet he is an atheist too....
It's likely since most people in STEM are.
>most people in STEM are.
citation needed
He will not do this. I assure you this. People here like to make fun of Wild but he is actually one of the smartest mathematicians alive today. He is just unnoticed because his contributions come in the form of rewriting geometry and analysis and people don't see that as important as some guy finding new theorems.
But lets forget about his character and think about his framework. In a discrete and finite world then obviously such a thing as "proof by computation" is real but limited. Think about it.
To handle to 10^200 wildberger would have to write an mset with that many strokes. and then find the incredibly complex prime numbers that add up to 10^200.
No computer can do that by computation. Thus, he probably found a method. I think the reason he has been finally explicitly telling us about his axioms is for this moment. He found a way to put the endless aspect of infinity into a finite argument that will allow him to prove the goldbach conjecture all the way up to 10^200 through logical means.
>he is actually one of the smartest mathematicians alive today
Hello Wildberger
You are talking out of your ass. Notice that Wildberger does not claim to "solve" the Goldbach conjecture, he claims to "resolve" it. And that's exactly what the (stupid) axiom that there are no numbers above 10^200 does. It makes the Goldbach conjecture *solvable* and thus resolves the issue of us not knowing how to solve it. Yes, Wildberger really is stupid enough to say that. He's said stupider shit.
Yes, smartest mathematician who rejects formal definition of naturals for kid's intuitions and whose formal definition of naturals can be rephrased as "one is one thing, two is two things and so forth, and to add two numbers you just add them"
what does this fag have to say about [math]10^{200}+1[/math] ?
where did [math]10^{200}[/math] come from?
post yrw wildburger's proof is him drawing msets on the board to manually verify the conjecture for successive numbers until he dies
>A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
but he is austrailian, you can't generalize this result to non americans because they have different cultural biases and such.
But then what would be the point of hosting this event? Obviously he wants to stroke his cock while laughing at the faggots who believe in infinite sets.
As I said, if his proof is as simple as "just compute until 10^200" then he is just saying the proof is impossible, just as it is know. Because to reach 10^200 the entire universe needs to be your memset. How are you going to handle the entire universe?
He has something really clever in mind. I believe in him.
Yeah but those are his axioms. ZFC is also pretty arbitrary, specially when it defines the first infinite set, usually supposed to be N.
0 is a set with... 0 elements.
1 is a set with... 1 element
2 is a set with... 2 elements
It is not any different like his system!
0 is an mset with 0 strokes
1 is an mset with 1 stroke
2 is an mset with 2 strokes
Do you see how similar and arbitrary they are? Wild just chose the best path. The fundamental dichotomy of something and nothing is something very real and that makes a lot of sense even in mathematics today.
If he does this I will drop out of uni.
I am studying pure mathematics just so that I can follow his steps but if he turns out to be this much of a faggot then no reason to follow him.
But he won't do it, because he is a genius.
Good point, fair enough.
>don't believe in god but do believe in universal spirit or higher power
That seems like a rather sneaky way to word the poll. These are basically the same thing.
"Using common sense and an Aristotelian view of Mathematics..."
>But then what would be the point of hosting this event?
He already explained, he is going to rehash his ultrafinitist bullshit. It's just to get attention, that's all.
>As I said, if his proof is as simple as "just compute until 10^200" then he is just saying the proof is impossible, just as it is know.
Why would he care? The point is not to solve anything, it's to grab attention by claiming to solve a famous conjecture.
>He has something really clever in mind. I believe in him.
Are you seriously this gullible?
>To handle to 10^200 wildberger would have to write an mset with that many strokes
Why can't he just program a computer to do that?
>an Aristotelian view of Mathematics
What did he mean by this? I assume it's something opposed to the Platonic "forms" view.
>He already explained, he is going to rehash his ultrafinitist bullshit. It's just to get attention, that's all.
He is a fucking old man with a PhD in mathematics. You think he cares about attention?
>Are you seriously this gullible?
I used to shit on him here aswell until I saw the video he made about the paper he published where he proved that calculus is actually just an application of the binomial theorem and therefore can be explained completely with algebra.
That blew my mind. If he can do that. If he can take that shit that took my professors a fucking pile of definitions of continuity, integrability, riemann sums, etc. and prove it by instead just applying some high school algebra tricks then this guy must be miles ahead EVERYONE ELSE.
Fucking crazy.
>Why can't he just program a computer to do that?
Because 10^200 is the number of planck cubes in the universe. Forget the computer. If you used every single atom in your body as an mset it wouldn't be enough.
If you got a little marker the size of an atom and started painting atoms so that every marked atom represents a stroke... you wouldn't reach 10^200. And good luck painting every atom in the universe in the first place.
>He is a fucking old man with a PhD in mathematics. You think he cares about attention?
Yeah he just makes youtube videos for himself and he forgot to make them private.
>I used to shit on him here aswell until I saw the video he made about the paper he published where he proved that calculus is actually just an application of the binomial theorem
You're an idiot.
Computers don't use "msets" though. For fucks sake how can you be this stupid? There is no reason to adopt Wildberger's claim that the only way to represent numbers is in base 1. You can represent literally any number in any base with any finite amount of atoms or what have you.
>Yeah he just makes youtube videos for himself and he forgot to make them private.
He is not making them for himself. He has said many times that he does this in the hope that the younger generation of mathematicians, those just in undergrad, will take his ideas of a rigorous mathematics and start proving everything.
He already reinvented analysis with algebraic analysis and geometry with rational geometry but he is getting old. There are many other things and he wants the younger ones to understand.
As I said before, I am majoring in pure math and since day one we were fed the real numbers. If he was not making these videos then I would have never been taught the alternative. He does it for me.
The base you use to store numbers is not important. Even though it is theoretically possible, it is practically impossible to reach a number like 10^200 unless you say that it is 10 in base 10^200 or something equally meaningless.
The fact of the matter is that there is no way the universe can contain a number bigger than 10^200 and to represent 10^200 itself you would need the entire universe.
>rigorous mathematics
Wildberger is not rigorous, you koolaid drinking idiot.
>He already reinvented analysis with algebraic analysis and geometry with rational geometry but he is getting old.
Alright, I'm out. Confirmed for troll.
>Because 10^200 is the number of planck cubes in the universe
Isn't the universe expanding, the universe is getting older, no wouldn't the upper limit of his mset grow?
[math]{b}{u}{m}{p}[/math]
>The fact of the matter is that there is no way the universe can contain a number bigger than 10^200 and to represent 10^200 itself you would need the entire universe.\
Yet you just represented 10^200 in this very sentence with only a very small amount of matter.
10^200 is only a representation of 10^200
>to represent 10^200 itself you would need the entire universe
durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
All numbers are representations and nothing more.
p l e b s
get off my board
it is true
...
...
>your uni doesnt do live stream lectures for you to watch in the comfort of your own home :(
...
FOUR MINUTES
Get in here faggots
...
How long will it be?
...
~1 hour
it begins
How comfy is the UNSW?
How many Euclid shoutouts will there be?
1 level down from this happening LIVE.
AMA
Go up and yell "10^200" into the room and then book it
>probability
this is garbo poo poo
Wildberger is using limits to infinity. What a hypocrite.
Jesus, is everyone in this chat from Veeky Forums?
of course
kekekekekek
4u
kill yourself stupidwalrus
If a moment is infinitesimal then a finite number of them would be less than any real number of microseconds
Rude
>small and medium numbers
ugh
>infinitesimal
shiggy
STROKES
here we go
>[1111111111]
Ah here we come to the bullshit
FACT
I think you mean
>[ | | | | | | | | ]
that's a fact.
I told you he would do this. Fucking moron.
The universe is expanding in that it's separating farther away from other things at the atomic level. Not in that more stuff appears
How well known is Wildberger on Veeky Forums? I'm a UNSW student and was surprised to see wildberger is so well known on the internet on like /badmathematics and /sci
>basing mathematics on physics
this guy is a [math]cuck[/math]
Ryan McGuire, why you do this?
He's not talking about stuff, he's talking about space. But the whole planck cube thing is just a meme anyway.
SHIT FUCK I MISSED THE START
He's a big meme for you
Watch X2 speed like a true academic
Globalizing the meme economy.
>hurr we can only use 1000 symbols
>alphabet of 1000 symbols
this is arbitrary, no?
why can't we do a 10^8 symbol library?
>a number is out of range
delicious keks
>Out of range
Proved
QED
REEEEEEEEEEKT
>a number is out of range
>a number is out of range
wew lads, meme magic is real
> powerpoint program crashes
this is proof that this conjecture was never meant to be resolved.
does the notation of 10^200 convey everything about the number, or not? Sure you can't write it out in base 1, but so what? the notation "10^200" contains the whole of the number.
He sounds quite flustered. Has anyone seen some spaghetti slip out of his pockets?
this is so sad
He's being misleading here. First he argues big numbers have a low probability of being expressible. Now he's saying that they go up in complexity when they get partially factored. But most won't, only the easy examples he gives will. He's trying to have it both ways in order to make it seem like big numbers are a big problem.
>there aren't infinitely many prime numbers
you heard it here first folks
not an infinite amount of primes
gg, math BTFO