FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA BTFO

me no speaky you language

He says his double esses like he's gay.

>I do not need to find the zero to know it exists

holy fucking shit you fucking plebean. kys you fucking classicist. never do math again. never

Since when does not being able to write a number imply it doesn't exist? Doesn't pi exist?

You need a stronger notion of existence.

Do you know why they call Q the rationals? Because they make sense and are logically consistent with our intuition and the world we live in, unlike R which stands for "Real" as in "this field Really fucking sucks"

>You need a stronger notion of existence.
you mean weaker. existance following only from constructability is a stronger (more specialized) notion than simple existance

lol you know what he meant u fucking pedant, though pedantry is nice in math so gj on that i guess

idk which video that is, but from what I've seen from his videos he deals only in the integers, and I haven't seen him deal with reals. The IVT relies on a theory of real numbers and so it is probably baseless so far. Baseless until we have a formalized kind of analytic continuation from the integers to the reals, if such a thing is possible.

Induction vs deduction

Are you new to math proofs??

zero is a postulate by itself as much as saying that subjective is now concrete, can only work as long as people acept the said axiom without questioning it

but then chemistry came and gave zero a significance of neutrality, rendering its' existence valid somehow

...

I...is this shopped?

>/wild/fags will defend this

This guy is truly the Gauss of retards

OK THIS WE HAD FUN TIME BUT IT'S TIME TO STOP NOW WILDBERGER, PLEASE.

HE CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT

That is not photoshopped and I will defend it.

If you think there is a prime number bigger than z (as defined in his picture) THEN PLEASE SHOW IT TO ME.

If you show me that prime number and then give me a set location I will go there and suck your fucking dick. I will swallow your cum. I will suck the dick of ANYONE you want me to suck. I will even give you my ass if you that is what you are into. I will cut off my penis and swallow it. I will assasinate Donald Trump AND Hillary Clinton. Only if you send me one prime bigger than z.

Aaaand if you do it in the next 15 minutes then I will willingly transition to a female so that you can fuck me right in the pussy.

kekd so hard

Tell me what the triangle in his picture represents and I'll show you a prime bigger than z.

[math]z = 10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10}}}}}}}}} + 23[/math]

I will be waiting, drinking water to get my mouth nice and wet for the cocks I will be sucking.

>That is not photoshopped and I will defend it.
Good. Defend it for me, then.

What axiomatization of the natural numbers do you subscribe to? Presumably it is not the Peano axioms, for those imply unboundedly-large natural numbers (and unboundedly-large primes, as well), which I believe Wildberger rejects. What axiomatization DO you want to use here? Please list it in detail.

>Good. Defend it for me, then.

I just did and let me tell, my mind is already craving big cocks so please help the other guy find a bigger prime so that I can go give you all blowjobs.

Note: I can only give a finite amount of finitely-long blowjobs

>What axiomatization of the natural numbers do you subscribe to?

I of course want to use Wildberger's axiomatization but this is not really the best way to put it. What axiomatization we use is a philosophical argument. I say that we use whatever axiomatization best fits our reality.

Could that be the Peano axioms? Maybe. You will have to show me that those axioms actually hold up to the real natural numbers we work with every single day.

But I will ask you less than to show me an infinite amount of numbers. I will simply ask you to find me a prime bigger than z, as defined here Just one.

But if you give me two then I will rip off my eyeball and give you a patented eye-job.

When infinity sends its numbers, they're not sending their best. They're not sending 10. They're not sending triangle 4. They're sending numbers that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to math. They're bringing paradoxes. They're bringing bad logic. They're nonsense. And some, I assume, are good numbers.

>please help the other guy find a bigger prime
I am. But to do so I first want to be crystal clear on what you mean by "prime". Which starts on getting crystal clear what you mean by "natural number". Hence the call for your axiomatization.

>What axiomatization we use is a philosophical argument.
No, it isn't. It's a key mathematical distinction. I want to make sure we are using the same model of the natural numbers. If you and I used different axiomatizations that imply nonisomorphic models, then we are not talking about the same thing at all, and there is no disagreement but rather a miscommunication.

>I say that we use whatever axiomatization best fits our reality.
That's a nice ideal, but we are talking mathematics here, not physics. It is not clear what axiomatization best fits our reality. You are (presumably?) asking for a construction *in a mathematical model*; which means you need to tell me what mathematical model you are using as your setting.

>But if you give me two then I will rip off my eyeball and give you a patented eye-job.
I will happily give you two, once the mathematical setting is clear. (Assuming, of course, that we are in fact talking about the same setting.)

>I of course want to use Wildberger's axiomatization but this is not really the best way to put it.
Can you summarize that for me?

Okay, whatever.

Use the Peano axioms. Those are the natural numbers. Now, don't prove that some prime bigger than z must exist. WRITE IT DOWN AND SHOW IT TO ME.

>I will happily give you two, once the mathematical setting is clear.

I fuck I already got hard. Can't wait to suck your cock. Please deliver the primes.

>WRITE IT DOWN AND SHOW IT TO ME.
Okie dokie!

For a natural number N, let factorial(N) = N * factorial(N - 1), with factorial(0) = 1.

For a natural number N > 1, let smallestfactor(N) be the smallest natural number M, with 1 < M

>y = smallestfactor(factorial(z) + 1)

What the fuck is this bullshit? You call this "writing it down". You get NO succ from me boi. You get absolutely NO succ from me, homeboi. Coming to me with this bitch ass notation. Naaa.

>. I could give you a proof that this number is prime and larger than z

I understand why it is prime but pls prove that it is larger than z. I don't see that.

BUT YOU AIN'T GETTING NO SUCC BOIIIIIII

You write that number down either as a multiset or in hindu-arabic numerals or get the fuuuck out.

>You write that number down either as a multiset or in hindu-arabic numerals or get the fuuuck out.
Then can you write z down in hindu-arabic numerals? I used the same standard for writing things down as you did. It's not like the exponentiation operation has special privileges, after all.

>pls prove that it is larger than z. I don't see that.
For any number N with 1 < N

fucking kek

>Then can you write z down in hindu-arabic numerals?

No, I can't. Because z isn't even a natural number. It is a dark number.

If you want then I can change the competition. Write z down and I'll give you sucky sucky.

I don't even lurk Veeky Forums but this is gold.

This video was great! Mathfags forever in tears.

Mathfag here, my whole life has been a life. Be right back, going to kill myself after doing a process involving infinite iterations to get a root.

People saying that there is always a next number is like people saying that they will always live for a next day.

Think about it.

Really makes me think.

Mathematics does not care about how much time you have, or how large the universe is. It is a collection of abstract ideas that logically stem from established axioms

This is #fakemath and Obama needs to ban it.

but how can there be [math]10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10}}}}}}}}} + 23[/math] if there are only [math]10^{200} [/math]

wildfags on suicide watch

That's like arguing for Wildberger, he finds his way more aesthetic so it's got to be right, right?

>whole life has been a life
That's good to hear.

"If the theory doesn't fit the facts, find a new tailor" - Isaac Kaczynski

Is this the new mememathematics thread

>"real" analysis
>worth thought

If i take countably infinite many countable infinite set, what do i get ?

You can't just take the one you like and discard the consequences

Trips confirm

kek

That's the point. That is why Wildberger used z to disprove the Goldbach conjecture.

So this guy invented a new mathematics to disprove conjectures and known proofs with his new mathematics because he has autism and is unable to accept that people are better than him? That he can't proof anything unless he has to cheat?
So, in the mathematics I created, his argument is not true.

He created new axioms only to formalize his realizations.

The core of his arguments have nothing to do with axioms. He most of the times just assumes the usual stuff. He says:

Oh, you think that numbers are infinite and that all natural numbers have the same properties? Good to know. Please confirm this hypothesis of you by factorizing z.

What, you can't do it? But I can easily factorize a number like 3 billion, or 5234. But you can't easily factorize z? I WONDER WHY? Could it be? Could it be that big numbers are actually different than small numbers?

I guess we will never know ;^)

And that is how he makes fun of brainlets but then after 50 videos of making fun of everyone he then comes with his new axiom and then proves formally and rigorously what his intuition showed in the previous videos.

And if you think he is wrong then please factorize

[math] z = 10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10}}}}}}}}} + 23 [/math]

Or please write me down the entire square root of 2 so that I can square it and confirm that it squaring it will actually give me 2.

>Or please write me down 2/7 so that I can multiply it and confirm that seven times it will actually give me 2.

> write me down 2/7
babby's first real number

Hey, big claim there.

2/7 * 7 = 2/7 + 2/7 + 2/7 + 2/7 + 2/7 + 2/7 + 2/7 = 14/7 = 2

Hey. It works. Great job. Now please write down the square root of two so I can confirm.

>Could it be that big numbers are actually different than small numbers?
No. It is trivial to prove all naturals can be factored, it is another matter to do it by hand. To create a number so arbitrarily large that no man or machine will factor it in the time before universal decay does not dispute this, it is just an arbitrary difference highlighted to give merit to a meaningless formalism.

>All naturals can be factored
Then please factor z. Please. I already offered to give you all blowjobs.

Your position:
The complexity of a number is not a fundamental property of numbers.

Wild position:
The complexity of a number is a fundamental property of numbers.

So it sounds like you are a brainlet who wants to ignore a higher level of nuance in number theory and wants an easy way out. I am so sorry your IQ is that low. Do not feel bad though. It is normal for people to not understand Wildberger as z can also be defined as a lower bound on his IQ. He is beyond this universe.

I said all numbers could be factored not that I will factor it or anyone else will. Wild Burger continually falls back on the arbitrary nature of philosophical dialogue to support his crap. Will you always wonder if the earth is flat until you see it from space? Does something not exist until one confirms it with their own eyes? There is a fancy name for this kind of philosophy, but it is quite useless.

You can prove the earth is round using good math. No need for snake oil shit.

Let me show you what you are

>Hey guys, look at my proof for the contuinity of this function in this interval. I can draw it with my pen without lifting my hand. QED

That is not a valid proof! You need to use limits to design a valid proof.

>WHAT? WHAT? Fuck you! Do you only believe what you can rigorously prove? You Cauchy fanboys are so dumb!

The point is that rigor is a convention. A common theme in Wild Burger math is an immense dislike of induction, because if the number system did have inductive properties then he is talking about nothing. First of all, this has been the study of logicians largely in the beginning of the 20th century and his meandering is not original or interesting. Second, the entire theorem -> proof -> theorem progression that any mathematician uses to formulate a system, including him, relies on induction inherently when it does not bother to re-assert the reasons for validity of a claim every single time it is used.

[math]\sqrt{2}^2 = \sqrt{2} \sqrt{2} = 2[/math]

Sure, that is an algebraic object. An algebraically constructed square root of 2.

But analysts and realists (read as crackpots) claim that the square root of 2 is an actual decimal. An actual number!

I ask of you only one thing: If you believe such a decimal exists please write it down for me so I can square it using traditional arithmetic to confirm that indeed such a root exists.

I don't understand the obsession with writing the numbers down in full.

Its perfectly useful in its current form.

>I don't understand the obsession with writing the numbers down in full.

Me neither! I am perfectly find with using extensions of the rational numbers. Like algebraically extending Q to have i, or root 2 or root 3, etc. to solve equations. It is you, the realists, who came up with the idea of real numbers. The so called infinite decimals. The so called fillers of gaps. The so called continuum.

I don't understand your obsession with making up shit that doesn't exist, instead of using algebra to your advantage. If you believe modern real analysis then you believe that root 2 is not only an algebraic constant (like i), you also believe that it is represented by a supposed infinite decimal. Not only that but you believe that infinite decimal not to be separate from the usual numbers. You believe that such decimal actually sits in the number line, even though such an object cannot exist in the first place.

Please, please explain to me your obsession with such bullshit.

harhagbangalghjag

this is now a real number and you will treat it as such. what? it's not a number? it doesn't even make sense? what the "fuck" am I talking about? how dare you question my precious algebraic field!!!! you moran!!!!!! go back to watching wilderburger videos u dumbdumbb!!!

The point, dear user, is that you cannot write down the decimals of 2/7 neither. And does that mean that 2/7 is not a number?

>2/7 is not a number?
it's a fraction, jesus christ!

GOLDBACH
CONJECTURE
IS
"STRONGLY"
FALSE

who was there?

Noone said it wasn't a fraction :^)

Which video is this

>I don't understand the obsession with writing the numbers down in full.
it's a property that irrationals/transcendentals don't have

if you hyper-focus your definition of "number" on a tangential property that these numbers by definition do not have, then you can cast them out

>your definitions are arbitrary because I say so, heh, ggnore.

I mean, its decent trolling. On par with the moon landing deniers of /pol/. But honestly, your argument is full of undefined words, and concepts I'm pretty sure you haven't fleshed out.

>doesn't exist
Berger fanatics never seem to give a definition of existence. You never explain why "muh write it with a pencil" is the proper definition.

>the usual numbers
lol what

>root 2 can't exist
Come on man, I can draw a square with sides of length 1 and draw the diagonal, which is obviously length root 2. If you're going to say numbers don't exist, at least pick one that isn't constructible, lol.

Could you explain to me what you argument is?

>never seem to give a definition of existence.

Doesn't exist is equivalent for it being impossible to see or imagine.

Like you can imagine the extended rationals but you can only imagine that you can imagine a real number.

>the usual numbers
By this I mean the number line. You believe root 2 to have a unique place in the number line (show it to me). This is of course bullshit. Root 2 is a member of the two dimensional rational plane of the rationals extended with root 2. Root 2 is like i in the sense that it is located in a separate axis, not together with the rational numbers.

> I can draw a square with sides of length 1
You can but you have to realize that those segments are not "continuous" lines, but like a pearl necklace.

>Could you explain to me what you argument is?
That just because you write a symbol to represent a number doesn't mean it exists.

I wonder what Euler and Gauss would upload to YouTube if it existed in their day.

>Disproving theoretical mathmatics and virtuality
>Video games don't exist / are false because virtual 3D space is an illusion

Well done. All of you goyim

>virtual 3D space

Where V is virtual 3D space, anyone who knows about game programming knows that

[math] \mathbb{Q}^3 > V [/math]

Which means that V is always an actual set that exists in the actual real world and can be constructed as a subset of the rational numbers

>dude, what if all numbers are just our imaginations?
bullshit. I'm looking at 5 trees right now. are you going to tell me 5 doesn't exist?

>Hey guys, here is an irrational tree

>rationalists discover that they are not at all empiricist

AWKWARD

>The point on a branch that lays 1 unit horizontally and 1 unit vertically from the origin of a tree.

lolwut

A countable union of countable sets is countable under Axiom of Choice, and countable AoC is not nearly as freaky as the full one (as far as I understand, which is not much).