Tell me /sci/, is this guy just full of shit? There's over

>>8548979
He is one of the less retarded cranks out there in that as far as I can tell (I haven't watched everything he puts out) he does have actual math experience and nothing he says is really _wrong_ if you accept the premises he starts from

the problem is that his premises are retarded, for example he thinks that if representing your number as a big pile of 1s takes more 1s than the number of planck volumes in the observable universe, that means your number isn't a valid number

>>8548990
>he thinks that if representing your number as a big pile of 1s takes more 1s than the number of planck volumes in the observable universe, that means your number isn't a valid number
What the fuck?

>>8548979
>someone sum it up for me pls

AXIOMS

>>8550725
Elaborate please.

>mfw mathematics has been assuming the axiom of infinity

>>8550754
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCDRCGjmaO8

File: despair reeeee.png (422KB, 665x662px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 665x662px

>search "dedekind cut" on YouTube
>his two videos are higher in the results than serious videos about Dedekind cuts

>>8548979

His traps sure are strange, even though he seems swole for his age

>>8550925
synthol. He's on the gear brah

>>8548979
His videos are eye-roll generators for mathematicians.

>>8548979
He just really doesn't like the idea of infinite sets. Everything else follows from there.

>>8548979
is it autism?

>>8548990
So the calculations you are "allowed" to do depend on the currrent state of empirical evidence regarding the size of the universe? If a correction occurs, suddenly old calculations (and possibly proofs depending on large numbers) become possible or obsolete? This is beyond dumb.

>>8550954

Top kek, this guy is a living meme

>>8548979
How did he get so buff? Is Wildberger natty?

>>8551208
Full natty.

>>8550957
Do you ever wonder why you and others react this way to Wildberger and others like him? You think that if enough people sneer at someone that invalidates their ideas? Wildberger has the courage to confront what he believes is an error in mathematical thinking. Retards such as yourself laugh at this because it assures you that are smart. Have you ever studied the history of mathematics, science, or any human endeavor? There are countless examples of the majority opinion being wrong and the most enlightened minds of the time being ridiculed. Indeed, this does not serve as evidence that any one renegade is correct. It should, however, make you reassess whether you know what you claim to know. If you think that our ideas about infinity are certain, you are kidding yourself. The number of academics being certain of something has no bearing on the truth. They are sheep and frauds like you. You will all continue believing in the things that will signal to other people that you are smart. You don't care about knowledge or even thinking. You wouldn't pursue an academically unpopular thought because you care more about acceptance than substance. Wildberger may be completely "wrong," but at least he questioned what he was told and formulated his own thoughts are much more robust than you and any sneering academics give them credit for. One Wildberger is worth 1000 of your kind.

>>8551236
is this the new wildpasta?

>>8551259
post wildpasta

>>8550957
absolutely rekt>>8551236

>>8550792
>this cool thing called calculus is realy hot and new
>maybe we can try to make it more riggorous
>lets pick some axioms from witch we can proof calculus.
OH SHIT ITS NORMAN, WADDUP
>THE WAY YOU PICK AXIOMS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CLASSICAL DEFINITION OF AXIOMS

He's going back and trying to redefine modern mathematics without using some of the axioms he's uncomfortable with. This is a perfectly valid thing to do, and he's doing it in a rigorous manner. He's far from the only mathematician who doesn't like some of the implications of the axiom of choice.

It's something any mathematician could do without anyone giving a shit, except that the way Wildberger presents his views is unusually contrarian and eccentric.

>>8552059
Are modern axioms like modern art?

He is very didactic at the least. He puts much emphasis on geometry, which he thinks as a subject has been underdeveloped in modernity

t. brainlet who did wildtrig and is partway through his lin alg

How can he define sequences as n tends to infinity if he doesn't believe in infinity?

>>8552245
Take the limit as n approaches the number of planck cubes in the universe

But tbqh, he still hasn't gone into calculus. I also wonder how he will do analysis. I hope he finishes his part about algebra with maxels quickly so that then he can start attacking the final boss, real analysis. To be known as Rational Analysis by the end of this decade.

>>8552283
Im desperately trying to catch up before he actually finishes

>>8552312
I wouldn't catch up if I was you.

Everything he has been doing up to know is really elementary. It is simply calling a rose by another name. It is the same mathematics with a different notation and some extra rules here and there.

I wouldn't learn his theory until he already advanced it to the point where you could potentially start proving new theorems using it.

The only "new" thing he has proved is how the goldbach conjecture is wrong but in the framework of his axioms, that proof is really trivial. The goldbach conjecture is almost wrong by definition if you use his axioms, so there is not much to see there.

When we can start talking about potential proofs for non-trivial problems like the Riemann Hypothesis (where even if there is only a finite number of roots, the hypothesis remains the same problem) then I would learn his theory from bottom to top.

I am subscribed to him so every time he uploads I start watching his videos but if it gets boring I just close it. Not much value in an incomplete theory.

>>8552283
But he did define limits in infinity