watch this nigga struggle with the epsilon-delta definition of a limit

forgot to link my meme:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4eAyn-oK4M

File: 1467183648954.jpg (49KB, 662x625px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 662x625px

You forgot to mention that it was for a sequence of reals, not even for a general metric space.

Fucking brainlets, when will they learn?

>>8443031

Lets see you do better brain let.

>>8443029
The only reason why you think he's struggling is because you don't understand what he's saying due to your small brain

File: P2d99E.jpg (64KB, 680x513px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 680x513px

>>8443031
The way he says "one" makes me laugh every time.

>>8444867
He says he doesn't know what does that mean to prove that for every epsilon there is N such that following condition is met and thinks we have to check uncountably many cases

>>8445684
>uncountably many cases
You mean infinitely many cases?

I don't think it's that simple.
At the end he looks at the special case of only rational numbers involved and still does "proofs by induction", I think

>>8445715
If something's uncountable then it's also infinite m8.
Every fucking high school student knows how to find n in terms of epsilon, even wildberger mentions it, but why does he object proving general case

>>8445778
what is countable infinity then?

Delta epsilon def works also for rationals, sequenced are defined as functions from N to X, where X is usually Q, R or C

>>8445781
It's something that's both countable and infinite, are you fucking retarded? Naturals and reals are both infinite, but first are countable and latter uncountable

I watched the first few of his foundations of mathematics videos and they were honestly pretty interesting. He definitely has some good ideas of how to first teach kids about numbers.
But then I got to the video where he claims that if a number is too big to write down easily, we shouldn't claim to be able to say anything about it and I just couldn't go on. The man is a kook. I could only take his handwaving about how concrete concepts with real world analogies are superior to abstract, more general, concepts for so long.
He's got a talk coming about 'how big number theory resolves the Goldbach conjecture' and I'm 90% sure it's just going to be 'lol they're too big who cares XDD'. Should be fun to watch. It's livestreaming on YouTube in ~9 days:
https://youtu.be/Lme-uNPrry8

How can he say about infinite sequences (or poly number on-sequences if you prefer to use terminology for retards) if infinity doesn't exist? How can he say something about n tending to infinity if there's no such thing as infinity, that there are only finitely many naturals, presumably 10^200 as he claimed.