Proof:Observe!

I think you guys are not getting the point of this thread

>paying attention to atheists

why do you waste your life?

That claim is not disjoint from him wanting mathematics to deal only with what's computable, though.

Just listen to this video at 25:00.

youtube.com/watch?v=E_dGqavx5AU&t=25m0s

Again, agnosticism is master race.

Why do you waste yours asking yourself religious questions to which nobody can ever know the answer?

If youre worried that he does not like abstract algebra, he has many instances where he talks about symbolic manipulation, and how he feels about it (hes fine with it). At the end of the day if you watch the majority of his videos (which I have), he is against things which cannot be demonstrated and by definition can never be realized.

>Continuum Hypothesis

Hogwash.

I don't get get it. We have approximations, but these are based on infinities.
Thus to develop approximations we need to develop theories around these infinities.

>I'm a mathematician
He sounds like a computer scientist though.

Should I just watch this man's videos if I want to learn maths?

>Proof: simply do it
Proof by Nike?

I recommend it, His rational trig series will definitely teach you useful new things, and its not too hard.

He actually produces good mathematical content.
He's just on a useless vendetta as well.

>mathematics to deal with only things which are computable
Serious mathematicians have been working on that since before he knew anything about math, but he has never shown anything that could be taken seriously regarding the foundations of mathematics.
He's a retard and a troll and deserves to be laughed at.

And if you're really interested in a foundation for computable mathematics: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/effective topos

Have you even seen any of his videos? you seem to be attacking a strawman.

Come back when youve discovered a method of trigonometry that is valid over finite fields.

lecturer: shia

what does the statement mean in words approximately? I assume it's something about cardinality of absurdly large sets

Starting from [math]\aleph _0[/math], iterate the power set operation [math]\omega[/math] times. The cardinality of this set is [math]\beth_\omega[/math]. Now take the cardinality of the set of functions from [math]\aleph _0[/math] to [math]\beth_\omega[/math]. The claim is that this cardinality is greater than [math]\beth_\omega[/math].
This can be shown as an easy consequence of König's Theorem, using the fact that [math]cf(\beth_\omega) = \omega[/math].
So yeah, it is indeed about the cardinality of large sets. For some perspective, almost every object dealt with in classical mathematics has a cardinality below [math]\beth_4[/math].

Cauchy legit handled this issue in the 19th century.

and why is it so philosophically significant?

You can't make it in real life. Duh.

>equivalence class
icky

Veeky Forums and the majority of the mathematics community don't like Wildberger because they're too autistic to think philosophically about what they do and it upsets them.

wildberger isn't original, he's a shallow form of old schools of thought

I've seen some of his old lectures on abstract algebra, he had no problems with infinite products, infinite sets, writing [math]\mathbf{Z}[/math] which now he would say is invalid. What happened to him, how did he turn from normal maths professor to a crank?

let me quote a comment from his video on the incompleteness theorem: "Your (Wildberger's) cristal clear, consistent, free from mystery view of math, ends up being flat, dull, boring and soulless." this sums it pretty good.

Care to link those lectures? Also curious about when his contrarianism came about

youtu.be/xPeeFp_Hd3A
I'm not sure if that's the lecture I watched, but even if it's f not you'll have no problems finding one.
I don't know if he's a troll, got dumber with age (even he's not that old as far as professors go) or figured hell achieve nothing ground breaking in real maths started doing what he does just to become some guru amongst alt-maths brainlets. I think the latter is the cause seeing rise of rise in antiscientific community, like flathead earthers, anti vaccine movements or global warming denialists

>cristal clear

Source?

>Proof: By inspection.

Is that his answer to mathematical induction or something?

There are no equilateral triangles.
Proof:
Observe!

He is so spooked by the axiom of choice.
I bet he throws out well-ordering as well.
He should stick to playing the Peano.

Is he the Terry A. Davis of Mathematics?

>approximations
to claim this means that you have the real thing and some numbers approaching the real thing, otherwise you do not know that your approximations approximate anything

has he, dare I say, lost the plot?

>Virgin Terry A. Davis
>wastes a decade to write useless ancient-looking OS, no one knows or cares
>schizo neet, does nothing but stream and shitpost all day
>internet stalks a coalburner, finally loses virginity to a crack whore with AIDS
>gets his life fucked up even more than usual by /g/, currently under arrest warrant for punching the only people to care about him into a coma

>CHAD NORMAN J. WILDBERGER
>reinvents the entire field of mathematics, leaves everyone baffled by his insights
>associate professor in reputable university, has enlightened thousands of students as well as viewers from around the world
>happily married with a daughter
>online shitposting has no effect on him, brushes away the cries of brainlets that don't understand his thinking with his smug visage and acerbic wit

dedekind cut master race reporting for duty

joke: Wildberger
broke: Zeilberger
woke: Brouwer
bespoke: Bishop

>Have you even seen any of his videos?
I've known about him since before he was a meme.
What about you? Have you ever studied constructive mathematics?
He tried to be a real mathematician once, probably failed, and now he's a fucking clown.

but his argument is correct

He literally exhibits examples of why real numbers are poorly defined.

theres abuse of notation, then there's abuse of communication

Yeah and as I said so did the intuitionists, that's nothing new.

No, we have constructive logic and the people behind it argue against the law of excluded middle and separating the notions of "provable" and "valid", not infinity. Wildberger is a retard who doesn't accept that infinite things can have finite representations

There is literally nothing wrong with platonism