>an Aristotelian view of Mathematics
What did he mean by this? I assume it's something opposed to the Platonic "forms" view.
Only about 6 more hours
Kayden James
Eli Morgan
>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.
Jason Bailey
>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.
Brayden Richardson
>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.
Grayson Sanders
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.
Jack Ortiz
>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.
James Jenkins
>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.
Wyatt Phillips
>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?
Mason Hall
[math]{b}{u}{m}{p}[/math]
Evan Wood
>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.