FTA disproved

>>8599228
Is there anything Doctor Wildberger can't prove? How can non-finist shitters even compete?

>>8599235
Observe, mother: I have posted it once more!

>>8599228
You'll get a bunch of joke replies but no one here will be able to say a thing.

>>8599228
Is this the new mememathematics thread?

>>8599355
>>8599228
Looks like it.

Listen. This guy have issues. Seen his website? Loads of things, almost all of them just sketches of thoughts. Nothing grounded. Loghorrea, this is called.

Now /sci stop with this freak.

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-13 at 5.51.20 PM.png (24KB, 659x268px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 659x268px

He's a stupid nigger

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=r%5E5+-2r+%2B+3+%3D+0

>>8599228
>disproved
Where? I didn't see a proof. Even the picture you have says "claim."

How are you this retarded, OP?

>>8599441
The solution of that equation cannot br expressed in a finite matter. That means with radicals products etc.

>>8599228
lots of people like this guy because you dont need deep insight or knowledge you claim everything is wrong arbitrarily and recreate math on shoulders of rarely cited pre godel logicians. Similarily this guy barely has a job because only on the internet could you even get an audience being this masturbatory

File: Huh.png (28KB, 819x215px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 819x215px

>>8599421
Yes, that's the spirit! Good job on finding potential roots. Now, let me test them.

Whoops! They are pretty close but they are not quite 0. Please try again.

>>8599461
>lots of people like this guy because you dont need deep insight

Have you ever seen dedekind cuts, my friend. Have you ever seen them in real life? Have you ever touched them? Have you ever felt them? Have you ever tasted them? Have you ever heard them? Have you ever smelled them? Have you ever fucked a dedekind cut?

I have fucked a dedekind cut. An old girlfriend back from good old '96. Good times But not. NOT GOOD TIMES. You know what dedekind cuts are? Do you know what real numbers are?

Basically, mathematicians in the age of calculus realized: Hey, we can't really find answers to a bunch of equations but we can (possibly) get arbitrarily close to a solution. And this sparked many "advances" in set theory. One that really stuck was that of dedekind cuts where you define a number by what is around them.

If you ask Dedekind what is the square root of 2 he will tell you, Oh. It is all the numbers around it! It is that simple ;^)

That's not the kind of number you want to fuck with and that is why mathematicians very rarely fuck dedekind cuts. If you read any analysis book very few of them will ask you to take a Dedekind cut and confirm that such sets represent a given number.

Heck, I bet no one here could confirm if a set is actually a dedekind cut. No one here has any idea of how to work with real numbers.

Wildberger. Wildberger has fucked MANY dedekind cuts and he has realized that it is not pretty to fuck with dedekind cuts and now he is a sort of MGTOW of dedekind cuts. He is a mathematician gone his own way. He will pay no attention to those dedekind cuts because they are dedekind cunts.

I respect that kind of man because I know his pain.

>>8599449
Of course it can be. "The first zero of r^5 - 2r + 3" is a finite expression of that number.

File: nohaydiagonala.png (354KB, 840x1230px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 840x1230px

>>8599480
>putting in approximate values
>expecting an exact result
could you be anymore of a nigger if you tried?

>>8599514
Don't you need an ordering on C in order to be able to talk about the first anything in it?

>>8599531
if they're approximate values then they're obviously not zeros

how do you not understand this?

>>8599531
Giving approximate values as proof of existence. You are the true big nigger here, anon.

>>8599531
this is the caliber of the "educated" sheep we fight against, fellow Wildberger acolytes

read his post and weep for him

>>8599554
i cri evrytiem

>>8599533
[math]a+bi<c+di \Leftrightarrow a<c \vee (a=c \wedge b<d)[/math]

>I don't believe real numbers exist
>Real number form parts of the solution to this algebraic equation
>Hence contradiction

Of course I mean the real parts of the complex number here, if I remember correctly he is ok with associateing a symbol to sqrt(-1).

Wildburger has a position, he just has to be honest about it, it is fine to reject the existence of the inductive set axiom, but what he can't claim is that the inclusion of that axiom is somehow illogical because it doesn't fit his intuition.

>>8599449
Since when is "expressible with 'radicals products etc.' the definition of existence?

>>8599499
I only come here to read posts like these.

>>8599228
But everyone knows that everything is discreet. Approximations just tell us a close enough answer for our purpose. Numbers only makes sense when you apply it to reality and you count motherfucking atoms or similar. Then you gonna get exact answers, otherwise everything you do is technically "numerical methods".

Are you bitches crying because you don't have an exact solution to that shitty equation in OP?

>>8600061
You are correct but you touch on the thing I like most about Wildberger.

His argument is no different from people who argue for the continuum hypothesis, or the axiom of choice, or against intuitionist logic.
>I claim that X is logically true/false because it's what us intuitive to me!!

The correct response is to take a pluralist approach where one accepts all these perspectives side by side as parts of a more general view of mathematics. It is little different from making the jump from "euclidean geometry is the only valid type of geometry" to "euclidian and non-euclidean geometries are all valid and may be studied side by side".