Mfw someone says a set can be "infinite" near me

hes starting a calculus course soon in partnership with some course website, subscribe and find out.

There's nothing wrong with him using his own set of axioms (excluding the axiom of infinity) and doing math with it. The part that's wrong is him saying the rest of math is wrong from his own axioms when he's chosen his own set of axioms to use, and we're using the axiom of infinity.

For fuck sakes, math isn't something that's discovered or exists naturally. It's a fucking human invention for which we have made its rules. He's arguing over what rules we should use like it matters.

>>For fuck sakes, math isn't something that's discovered or exists naturally. It's a fucking human invention for which we have made its rules. He's arguing over what rules we should use like it matters.
no. creating maths is as natural as being persuaded that my creation is better than others and others are retards for not believing in my creations. Men love dick contests and live for them, until they meet to some women .

Maths =! Physics

In maths you can perfectly imagine a 450-dimensional sphere and do your stuff. In physics less so

>math isn't something that's discovered or exists naturally. It's a fucking human invention
Me, trying to impress him: "I also failed my ToK essay."

>Lengths below the Planck lengths and time intervals below the Planck second have no physical meaning.
Only because we currently have no theories to describe effects at those length scales. Doesn't mean they don't exist.

How come you're only allowed to assign one number to each Planck cube? Why not two?

>There's nothing wrong with him using his own set of axioms (excluding the axiom of infinity) and doing math with it. The part that's wrong is him saying the rest of math is wrong from his own axioms when he's chosen his own set of axioms to use, and we're using the axiom of infinity.
Actually his disagreement sits at the meta-logical level. He doesn't believe that infinite sentences have any truth value and I'm pretty sure he disagrees that universal quantifiers can be applied to an infinite set of things (rather he seems to suggest the need for a computable function).

>For fuck sakes, math isn't something that's discovered or exists naturally. It's a fucking human invention for which we have made its rules.
There is a wealth of writing on this in mathematical philosophy and the only obvious conclusion we can draw is that you have little basis for making that claim as there are many different disagreeing perspectives (even among those that agree with you).

I love how these Wildberger threads always bring the plebs to the slaughter.

It's not constructable

kek

I don't only believe in the existence of an infinite cardinal, I also believe there is a measurable cardinal. fight me

The true redpill is knowing that only the natural numbers exist and everything else is mathfaggot wankery.

Wrong. Not all natural numbers exist.

Why is wildburger so popular? Doron is an actual mathematician who has solved open problems but nobody mentioned him. See sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/OPINIONS.html .

Wildberger is just a meme here, just like Langan and Barnett.

Why is no abstraction allowed in this system

>Lengths below the Planck lengths and time intervals below the Planck second have no physical meaning.
Yet.

Daily reminders that our models are just models, and while they work great(ish), they are actually not "laws of nature" of any kind.
Our incapacity to make sense of anything inferior to Plack length doesn't mean anything.

>there are still brainlets on this board unknowingly misrepresenting Wildberger's opinions

...

fuck physics

Doron is great.

Oh hey didn't see you here.

> list of 160 opinions
> no lectures on the beauty of geometry
gee I wonder.

Each planck cube in the universe can and will have different values for magnetic field strength vector, electric field strength vector, gravitational field strength vector, and the other two non-contact forces nobody likes to talk about. Each vector contains three numbers, assuming 3 dimensions, so there are more than 10^200 numbers per cube. The two EM vectors can probably be expressed as one, ask Maxwell. If each planck cube could only store 1 scalar, or even only 1 bit of information, then there wouldn't be enough information in the universe to describe the universe. This might make sense due to something Heisenberg said, but at this point I'm talking out of my anus.

the known universe just added more planck cubes in the time it took you to post that so uhm, try again sweetie!

OP btfo

>reals
>existing

that's a big kek

I know, right?

So you're one of those "Cantor was full of shit" people, right?

Cantor BTFOing [math]\text{Piggot}[/math]s 100 years later

Is this the flat earth of math?

math isn't physics
he doesn't like the axiom of infinity, which in math is like saying you don't like the axiom of existence

sure, you have the right to construct your own math based on whatever axioms you want, but no one with half a brain will pay attention if it isn't interesting

if he does everything he's claiming he will do it will be interesting tho

He will finally impart the knowledge of rational calculus...

If and only if you give him money...

hmmmmmmmmm...........

eat shit commie scum

I'm a huge fan of both Doron and Wildberger. I think everyone that likes Wildberger is a fan of both. You can't not be desu.

He finally found a way to out Jew the math jews

Imagine you took all the carbon atoms in the universe, it's still a finite number of them. You round up every last one, and you count them, and you have an exact number. But then G*d makes more, and more, and more even still, giving us an infinite number of carbon atoms in His domain.

God bless, go with Jesus the Christ.

>mathq'huqqs: eternal hellfire
>enlightened lifelong students who accept and understand the existence of the infinite: fresh, prime pussy in both flavours

> prove that A is a finite set

nigga complex analysis is so fucking beautiful i don't even know why real analysis exists

>mfw [0,1] and [0,2] have the same number of elements
>throw out the first 1 elements
>now [1,2] and the empty set have the same number of elements
>but [1,2] clearly cannot have zero elements if it is infinite
>qed

this is not even a counting error wtf?

FPBP

...

**physicalists

>there are only 11 dimensions guys, ANY MATH THAT GOES PAST 11D IS INVALID

Sometimes I wonder what it's like being a literal brainlet.

Someone explain to me how "There are only so many planck cubes in the universe so there can only be numbers up to that" is a valid argument.

...

Ultrafinitists have autism and pretend to make mathematical arguments when they're really making philosophical ones