/wildberger/

His maths is literally designed for computation.

ok someone redpill me on this why is no one using this if it's so great

>ok someone redpill me on this why is no one using this if it's so great
it goes against the current dogma. most mathematicians are haunted by the spook known as "the axiom of infinity"

there's nothing particularly wrong with his ideas, if anything he's a bit of an egomaniac if he thinks others should pick it up, but not crazy

Who would win?
>a centenary mathematical consensus amongst the most intelligent mathematicians on Earth and approved by physicists, chemists, engineers, architects and economists all around the world because of how useful its accomplishments are
>some senile Euclid-worshipping conspiracy theorist on YouTube

>approved by physicists, chemists, engineers, architects and economists
You mean applied mathematicians who are happy (and able) to truncate and don't care about precision?

rigor was a mistake

Empiricists ruin everything.

*make everything you use
Autistic rigor won't get you anywhere, it's basically philosophy at that point

>basically philosophy
That's not a bad thing. Math is philosophy.

>2018
>not being a mathematical universe monist

>guy makes sense
>call him a schizo
Have fun with your quest for infinity

Only patricians use gradient.
Plebs when ill they learn.

They truncate the final result, not the middle steps you stupid memester.

>happy to lose information every step of the way

Jeez, is this Lego hour?

>All his maths is logically true, so I doubt it's schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia doesn't make you commit logical flaws.
It's the complete opposite, schizophrenics are more likely to give logically correct answers to questions that defy common sense.
bjp.rcpsych.org/content/191/5/453.long
Also it's right hemisphere damage that's strongly associated with delusions i.e. the rationalization behavior associated with left hemisphere activity is the *source* of delusional thinking, not a means for combating it. When the right hemisphere is impaired it leaves rational thinking unchecked and you get the classic cases of stroke patients claiming obviously untrue things like their paralyzed arm isn't paralyzed on the basis of insane rationalizations like the unmoving arm their doctor is pointing to is really someone else's arm.
Note that insane rationalizations like that are not *logically* untrue. There is no violation of logic committed by the assertion a doctor could mistake someone else's arm for your own. What's going wrong is a lack of insight and common sense, not a lack of logic.
It's exactly because of an overly logical approach to thinking that people get lost in delusional beliefs in the first place e.g. Kurt Gödel starving to death to avoid being poisoned. His incompleteness theorems have been thoroughly confirmed, even with machine-assisted verification:
cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/papers/Formath/Goedel-logic.pdf
And he was obviously mentally ill.

I still can't tell if all these wildberger posters are shitposting or seriously this retarded

Dyslexia: the post

>I still can't tell if all these wildberger posters are shitposting or seriously this retarded
What do you mean?

His arguments are completely solid. So much of modern maths is hand-wavy bullshit.

Really interesting. What's your stance on Prof Wildberger? I would be extremely reluctant to put him in the same camp as Gene Ray (Timecube).

His arguments are hand-wavy bullshit

>His arguments are hand-wavy bullshit
Give one (1) example.

>What's your stance on Prof Wildberger?
If I had to characterize him as mentally impaired in some way I would go with autism over schizophrenia personally. He seems autistically obsessed with making a mathematical distinction that doesn't really change anything and requires a bunch of extra work to reinvent the wheel.

Seen his arguments months ago so I barely remember what they were, I could go through some "why infinity gives you contradictions :^)))))" video if you link one

Watch his Mathematical Foundations videos from 001. Nothing doesn't make sense.

Oh I never argued that his mathematics were wrong per se, I don't know whether they are, but his own constructs being consistent doesn't make the classical ones inconsistent.

You don't see a problem with limits as a replacement of infinitesimals? Or with sqrt(2) in Pythagoreanism?

No I don't.

His proof that addition of naturals is commutative was "just flip it" which is more handwavy than all of the modern maths combined

You mean that IIII + III is not the same as III + IIII? :O

But he did define a limit, by basically just saying that L is a limit of a_n if |a_n-L|

You need to break it down into sums of I's first, it's not "just true lol"

I meant multiplication, that's where he used the flipping argument (and he used that argument on numbers defined as bunch of circles but didn't set up an isomorphism between naturals defined as circles and line segments, so even if his flipping argument was valid it doesn't mean yet it is still true for numbers defined as line segments. And he didn't even make that "proof" in full generality, only showed it for one case)

is there software that uses his maths that is faster than software using conventional trig

Lmao confirmed for not knowing shit about applied math. All differential equations are solved numerically by machines that only use rational numbers, every step of the way. Read into how diff eqns solvers are written, it’s all discrete rational math

You have to be severely brain-dead to think an engineer would solve y' = Ay numerically.

What do people honestly think about his rational geometry? It seems to have some good ideas at least (measuring angles using areas to avoid square roots).

*trigonometry, not geometry

I don't take this guy seriously because he posts his shit on YouTube. Worse than viXra.