LINEAR ALGEBRA ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>8459461
Too lazy to watch it and give it a view, pls infodump it on us.

>>8459461
don't know what the fuck he's doing, but it reminds me of hash tables

File: 789.png (77KB, 293x176px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 293x176px

>>8459461
>vexels
>maxels
Oh boy he's feeling real creative again

>>8459461
because he makes no sense.
the dude is a moron

>in practice, the entries are integers, rationals or floating point decimals

HOLY FUCK REAL NUMBERS BTFO
THE MADMAN

>>8459461
Literally only /sci/ gives a shit about this faggot

I understand this guys philosophy but...
Why? He gives me the impression that he is a mathematician that wants to be physicyst.

>>8461211
>Why? He gives me the impression that he is a mathematician that wants to be physicyst.

He is a mathematician who wants ZFC to be replaced by a computer. That way to prove a result you do not use the axioms to prove it, you just get a computer and see if a computer can do it. If the computer can do it then it is true.

>>8461224
I don't understand. Are you saying that this dude come up with a system that can do artihmetic without having any axioms?

> convert imaginary to real
> troll undergrads

wew

File: 1459117044920.jpg (219KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1920x1080px

This guy is a genius

File: 1476281186148.jpg (197KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1920x1080px

>>8461236

>>8461227
No, he has axioms but they are very simplistic. His only axiom is:
1) msets are a collection of strokes. It doesn't matter what they concretely are as long as you can distinguish the container and strokes. For example, my dick is an mset and every pubic hair is a stroke and in this way my dick represents the number 12000 or something like that.

From this he can define the primitive natural numbers as msets with certain strokes and can easily define addition by getting two msets and drawing an mset and marking a stroke for every stroke in both msets.

In this way he says that a number exists if and only if you can draw the mset it represents. He has literally drawn 500 lines on his whiteboard to invent the number 500. And this, for hin, proves really big numbers don't exist.

>>8459461
Finitism is a mental illness

File: 1456051040202.jpg (165KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1920x1080px

>>8461227
you cannot do arithmetic with just axioms, you also need inference rules.
he just uses unordered lists, then claim his constructions are natural/expected

>>8461250
I was sad with his anti something. I thought he would stick to his computer love by defining negative numbers in the same way computers see them.

He is trying to troll us isn't he

>>8461254
>I thought he would stick to his computer love by defining negative numbers in the same way computers see them.
How do computers define them?

>>8461258
There is a special kind of number kind signed number. In that number, the first bit is not read as part of the figure, but as an indicator of negative or positive. For example:

10111010 is not that number. It is negative 00111010

In other words, that first 1 is read as 'this number is negative'

If the first bit is 0 then the number is positive.

And we like it that way.

>>8461258
signed numbers, 1's complement,2's complement and non-fixed point numbers(i don't know how they call it in english)

>>8461258

so if you computer can have N positive integer at most, then we define the first half to be positive and the second half to be negative. 0 -> N/2 in ascending order, N/2 -> N is ascending order too, that is the largest negative number is N/2 and N is the smallest negative number.

Why does this guy believe there is a biggest number?

>>8461259
Not true, computers use (for integers, for floating point numbers it's similar to what you've written) two's compliment, that is, negative of 00111010 is not 10111010 but rather 11000101

>>8461293
Imagine you lived in a computer. There the biggest number is the biggest number you could represent in that computer.

So if that number has 4 bits then the biggest number is 1111 and no one could deny that because then you ask them 'write me down that supposed bigger number!' and you couldn't

Similarly in our universe there is a limit of things to consider lines in his mset.

If we used every atom on the universe as a line then the biggest number would be the number of atoms but you can divide space even more into planck cubes and then you can use each planck cube as a line to create a really big mset which would represent 10^200 and because you cannot divide space anymore to create the mset for the next number, that next number doesn't exist.

That is the deal with his msets.

>>8461293
He defines natural numbers as strokes on whiteboard. Strokes have non zero size, so only finite number of them fits on a single whiteboard, and since there is obviously finite number of whiteboards in the observable universe, each of them able to represent finite number, so therefore there are finitely many naturals, which means there is the biggest natural number

Didn't he, finitist who believe in biggest natural number, use the notion of numbers tending to infinity in his definition of limit?

>>8461327
>you cannot divide space anymore than planck cubes

That's a pretty wild claim there dude, you got a source for that.

>>8461327
But we don't define numbers as representation of some physical quantity, the fact that we can assign a number to some multiplicity of apples or plank cubes is mere accident and doesn't influence the number system itself

>>8461332
My source is Wildberger.

File: 1465951443246.jpg (211KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1920x1080px

DARK NUMBER

>>8461366
He meant dank

File: peepee.png (11KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 420x420px

>>8461336
you can make up all kinds of stupid fucking rules that say noting about real physical reality but all you're doing is engaging in pure mental degeneracy, you're literally no better than a parapsychological pseudo-scientist

is this the stefan molyneux of /sci/?

>>8461189

I have a friend who is going for a doctorate in philosophy and he adores this guy (but doesn't take him as being right or wrong). He showed his videos to his professors and they said that the guy "should be burned on a stake". I think it's comical.

>>8459461
So how the FUCK is he going to construct vectors and matrices over the integers and rationals?

Is there such thing as an mset with a fractional or negative cardinality?

>>8461366
He has a pretty good argument in this that as you factor larger and larger numbers, the primes you get start getting more and more complex to write down.

In a certain sense what he's doing isn't math, but the foundations of digital physics.

>>8461236
>vexel
>maxel
>singleton
Burger can't even come up with good names for this shit

>>8461571
vexel sounds pretty cool tbqh. Like sci fi shit. Maxel is a bit weird but it doesn't sound bad. Singleton is a thing already in programming.

>>8461436
He has negative numbers as msets of anti lines

He already defined Z to be the empty mset, the primitive naturals and the primitive anti naturals.

Then from the integers you can construct the rationals in many ways in set theory. Using ordered pairs (pixels in his system) and then equivalence classes of ordered pairs, which could be constructed using his maxels.

Therefore rationals will be maxels of pixels of integers. This is just conjecture though. If you read a set theory text you see that this is how we construct Q so I would imagine Wild would use a similar idea, given that he has all the pieces in place (pixels as pairs and maxels as primitive equivalence classes)

>>8461613
Can you give an example?

>>8461385
Stefan is right on some things, wildburger is not

>>8461603
Singleton is already a thing in maths

File: jj9updazq3tx.png (548KB, 544x535px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 544x535px

Imagine taking his linear algebra class. Jesus christ the chaos

>>8461627
Of a rational number?

Well, first suppose you have numbers all the way up to integers (these also have to be constructed, see set theory texts)

Then consider the cartesian product of Z and Z* (nonzero integers) denoted ZxZ* and the equivalence relation in this set as such:

the pair of integers (a,b) is related to the pair of integers (c,d) if and only if ad = bc (here we are referring to the product defined on the integers)

so lets say you have the pair (1,2). It is related to the pair (2,4) because 1*4 = 2*2

So now take the equivalence classes generated by this relation. In simpler terms, take entire sets of pairs such that they are all related.

Then the equivalence class of (1,2) is {(5,10),(20,40),(1,2),...}

Then we define this class to be the number 1 over 2, and 5 over 10 and etc.

So 0.5 = that set

Another example is

0.33... (repeating) = {(9,27),(222,666),(5,15),...}

So rational numbers are infinite sets of ordered pairs of integers. Each one of them. Even the rational number 1 is an infinite set.

Now take the notion of ordered pair and call it pixel (a 2 list if msets)

Then take the notion of equivalence class and call it a maxel (mset of pixels)

Then this is enough to construct Q.

So in this system

0.5 = [ ([l],[ll]) ([ll],[llll]) ... ]

This set is NOT infinite, as the biggest mset represents 10 to the 200 so this set finite.

>>8459461

Could we maybe discuss a non-crank ultrafinitist like Doron?

What are you alls opinion of this?

He calls real analysis degenerate lol.
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimPDF/real.pdf

File: 1436051171687.jpg (29KB, 417x515px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 417x515px

>>8459461
Seriously, what is his endgame?

>>8461772
>ultrafinitist
>non-crank

>>8461772
>saying that root 2 is irrational is meaningless because that presuposses root 2 exists

MY NIGGA

he is right

>>8461723

https://youtu.be/RlAOCBY4YQs?t=2m10s

>I don't believe in this stuff but I'm gonna teach it to you anyway

Fuck Wildburger, man.

File: 1453276927179.jpg (162KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1920x1080px

>>8462955

File: 2016-11-07_21-04-28.png (95KB, 550x409px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 550x409px

>>8459461
this guy is a huge irl shitposter

it makes sense that he's a professor in Australia

File: 1469255470286.jpg (130KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1920x1080px

>>8462976

File: 1454106889124.jpg (166KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1920x1080px

>>8462979

File: 1454739054374.jpg (212KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1920x1080px

>>8462980

File: 1471846546109.jpg (226KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1920x1080px

JAMES FRANKLIN

all kidding aside he seems like a smart dude, (or at least in the op vid), he seems to be braking it down like a computer, very simple steps that guarantee a correct answer, now show me the error in my way

>>8462980
what are the 16 symbols? some biblical shit right there

File: 1451935356611.jpg (186KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1920x1080px

>>8463026

File: 1475344996302.jpg (24KB, 227x264px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 227x264px

>>8462985
>JAMES FRANKLIN
His research areas include the philosophy of mathematics and the 'formal sciences', the history of probability, Australian Catholic history, the parallel between ethics and mathematics[2] (work for which he received the 2005 Eureka Prize for Research in Ethics), restraint, the quantification of rights in applied ethics, and the analysis of extreme risk. Franklin is the literary executor of David Stove.

His 2001 book, The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal, covered the development of thinking about uncertain evidence over many centuries up to 1650. Its central theme was ancient and medieval work on the law of evidence, which developed concepts like half-proof, similar to modern proof beyond reasonable doubt, as well as analyses of aleatory contracts like insurance and gambling.[3]

His polemical history of Australian philosophy, Corrupting the Youth (2003), praised the Australian realist tradition in philosophy and attacked postmodernist and relativist trends.[4]

In the philosophy of mathematics, he defends an Aristotelian realist theory, according to which mathematics is about certain real features of the world, namely the quantitative and structural features (such as ratios and symmetry).[5] The theory stands in opposition to both Platonism and nominalism, and emphasises applied mathematics and mathematical modelling as the most philosophically central parts of mathematics. He is the founder of the Sydney School in the philosophy of mathematics.

In 2008 he set up the Australian Database of Indigenous Violence.

He is the editor of the Journal of the Australian Catholic Historical Society.[6]

File: 1448863834909.jpg (636KB, 963x2994px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 963x2994px

>>8463031

Fuck, I hope he gives a lecture at Unimelb some time. Unfortunately, though, I'm not sure what Unimelb's policy on intellectual crackpots is.

buno

>>8461986
You can literally
as in right now
literally
build the number [math]\sqrt{2}[/math] with just a ruler and compass. We got over this shit like 2000 years ago for fuck's sake

>>8464368
no you do not know that the number you get is sqrt2, because a number is just an assignment to a length. there is a length, since you can lay down your ruler on the line, but you do not know if it is possible to give the length the number sqrt2.
you think that it is possible only because you assigned previously natural numbers to lengths

>>8461986
>Presupposes root 2 exist
There's proof of existence of roots at the beginning of every real analysis book

Why change the names?

That's some autistic meme shit

>>8459461
Okay, serious question. Are there any actual, unironic Wildberger disciples here? Or just people who pretend because it's funny?

>>8461332
>[math]\mathbb R^3[/math]

>>8464670
Yeah, roots exist... in the reals.

The reals don't really exist.

Isn't this just discrete math, as you would do it on a computer

What happens if I have a matrix where the determinant is nonzero and the nullspace is nonzero? Are the columns independent or not? Did I fuck something up?

>>8464685
yeah.
haven't been convinced on the msets, but the calculus without limits is fun and he helped me visualize 3d rotations.

>>8461483
>foundations of digital physics.
Kek underrated