Is he, dare I say it, "our" guy?

File: urtomap.png (318KB, 4200x2970px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 4200x2970px

What a genius with insightful ideas.

>>8606960
People are getting confused between him making videos accessible to the average joe and ability.

>>8606963
+-Sqrt(2/g) doesn't exist? What am I missing here?

>>8606963
>Links his youtube videos on a paper
>'xe'
>'xis'

I don't believe this is real. Source?

>>8606996
It doesn't exist for most g as it would be irrational.

>>8607006
Since when don't irrational numbers exist? You can easily make a physical representation with a right angled triangle with sides 1,1,sqrt(2). That's fucking retarded.

>>8607019
That's wrong and that is actually an unjustified claim.

Pythagoras' theorem just says that c^2 = a^2 + b^2

Taking the square roots of both sides is pretty uncalled for and unrigorous. It makes more sense to think of geometry in terms of quadrance, not length.

Irrational numbers do not exist. If you believe they do please write it out for me like this:

I believe 3/2 exists. Here it is: 1.5

Now do that for root 2.

>>8607019
If our universe is finite then irrational numbers might not exist.

>>8607035
Please write out 1/9.

>>8607035
norman, please go

>>8607049
0.(1)
Wildberger actually made a video addresing the computational problems with infinite repeating decimals and why those are acceptable, while non-repeating infinite decimals are not.

In short. If you add 0.1111... + 0.11111... it is very easy to see that the repeating bits add very simply to 0.2222...

Even in more complicated cases like

0.66666... + 0.777777... you can start computing

1.3
1.43 (notice how we had to 'carry a one', which means that .3 was not constant)
1.443 (notice another carry)

And so on. Actually, in this sum you would never stop carrying ones if you were to add these decimals. But this is no problem because at one point the pattern becomes obvious. The last 3 becomes a 4 in the next step so you get 1.(4)

But now imagine root 2. The supposed decimal expansion of that. Wildberger notes that similar to repeating infinite decimals, there are many carries you would have to perform. But when and how many? We don't fucking know.

So actually it is impossible to conceive of arithmetic of irrational numbers. And lets not forget that sometimes carries can 'spill' over many decimals. When will they stop spilling? Who the fuck knows. That is why they are irrationals.

Take your undefined arithmetic back to /x/

I don't understand how someone can claim irrationals don't exist, yet have no problem with complex numbers

>>8607070
Complex numbers are very simple. It works because no crazy motherfucker claims that actually 'i' is an weird decimal lying somewhere in the number line. They, as they should, claim it is not a traditional number and lies in its own axis.

Wildberger and I believe the same thing holds for irrational numbers. I believe there is a "root 2" plane where the x-axis are the rationals numbers and the y-axis are the root 2 numbers.


For example
[math]2 \sqrt{2} [/math]
[math] \sqrt{2} [/math]
0 1 2
[math]- \sqrt{2} [/math]
[math]-2 \sqrt{2} [/math]

Of course, you should only do this if you REALLY need a root 2 to exists in your algebraic structure. Of course, this theory must be purely theoretical. No crazy faggot must claim that root 2 has a decimal. It may have approximations, but it doesn't exist as a number.

The number some motherfucker claims : i=-285935935.3030409230203203... then we will also say

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
You motherfucker NO. i is not a number. You faggot.

And the same works for all algebraic numbers like root 3. From this analysis you find out that real numbers are actually an infinite dimensional space.

For example, if you needed normal numbers, root 2 numbers and root 3 numbers, that would need a 3D space. If you also needed root 5 numbers then that would be 4 dimensional space.

If you include all the irrationals then you get an infinite dimensional space. Not good!

>>8607035
I may have jumped the gun calling something retarded without even thinking of something like that, Dunning-Kruger effect at work I suppose. Why aren't there rules about avoiding square rooting a potentially irrational number like there are with dividing by 0 then? Or is that expected to be taught in school soon enough?

>>8607004
it is obviously fake nigga. like are u autistic or smthn

>>8607058
why does everyone bully /x/ on this board

/x/ and /sci/ are my two most browsed boards

>>8607092
>Why aren't there rules about avoiding square rooting a potentially irrational number like there are with dividing by 0 then?

Because in usual analysis we work inside a weird set called the real numbers.

In this set, by the way it is defined, every infinite decimal can exist. If you care about why this is then look up dedekind cuts.

This form of thought is very interesting but it is also lacking. Dedekind cuts are such a deep logical concept that they are completely removed from any number theoretical/computational need for mathematicians. Which is why it makes sense to re-write applied mathematics and number theory in terms of rational numbers.

Dedekind cuts and real numbers are good pure logic, but bad mathematics.

>>8607092
>Or is that expected to be taught in school soon enough?

If you study pure mathematics then at some point the real numbers will be rigorously defined. But the knowledge you need to understand them is so huge that I never think such a class will ever be taught in schools.

>>8607098
Paranormal activity is not backed by evidence but rather by faith, it's the antithesis of science.

>>8607103
that doesn't mean there aren't laws related to it


if i went back in time and showed people modern technology they'd think it was paranormal

just because we don't know how something works or the laws related to it doesn't mean that those laws don't exist

>>8607109
If you want to believe things already exist without any evidence that's your right, not trying to stop you from doing such. But bringing that same philosophy to a board dedicated to the complete opposite and expecting users to let it slide is like spamming yuri on /y/ and getting upset when users shit on you.

>>8606960
Look mom, I posted it again x^D

>>8607058
>Wildman: root 2 doesn't exist because you can't write it out
>"what about 1/9"
>W: hold up, let me move the goal posts a bit
>W: Alright, as I was saying, root 2 can't be written as a decimal or with my new parenthesis notation, so it doesn't exist
>"Can I invent new notation"
>W: No.

Thanks for the worst argument of all time.

>>8607229
You are misrepresenting his position. He usually challenges people by saying "COME ON, SHOW ME AN IRRATIONAL NUMBER BOI. SHOW IT!" but all of that is simply in good fun.

He has made hours and hours of content on why, really, the real numbers were a mistake. His problems only start with how irrational numbers are infinite.

The real problem he has is what theorems you can prove if you assume you have a set like the reals. So many theorems that are so disconnected from our day to day mathematics that he finds it necessary to re-write the modern theory of arithmetic, geometry, algebra and analysis.

He is a good man, and he is very smart. Give him a shot.

>>8607247
>He is a good man, and he is very smart. Give him a shot.
Nice b8. Watched his Cauchy sequence video, he just proved he has no mathematical background.

>>8607247
I think he has more of a problem with non algebraic numbers than irrational ones

>>8607282
>he just proved he has no mathematical background.

Why? What did he do that you find dumb?

>>8607292
Obviously he does. Transcendentals are simply a consequence of the way real numbers as defined.

As I said before, defining real numbers as cuts pretty much says that any decimal is a number, regardless of how weird it is. That wrings logical problems and one of them is transcendental numbers, which are a fantasy.

>>8607282

He was a lie theorist before he became an ultrafinist

>>8607302
>Why? What did he do that you find dumb?
>u taek de sequenss and teh sequenss is its own limit
>if u taek 2 equivalent sequenss their equal
Biggest joke ever. I absolutely refuse to believe this guy has a math diploma of any kind.

File: 403f8d4ab780a22be67c87b1c6cb98e9.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

>>8606960
Does this have anything to do with the entropy involved in solving the roots to the most simple physics problems that give non sense solutions? You can't know what solutions are valid til you solve them all is the idea.

>>8607369
>>u taek de sequenss and teh sequenss is its own limit

Well, this is true. If you define real numbers as cauchy sequences of rational numbers then it trivially becomes a complete metric space and every cauchy sequence is kinda its own limit.

>>if u taek 2 equivalent sequenss their equal

But this is true.

If you take a cauchy sequence for the square root of 2 and then append the elements (40,50,99999) at the beginning (or really at any point) to that sequence, it is still a cauchy sequence with converges to root 2.

>>8607385
>What are equivalence classes?
>>>/out/

>>8607423
Funny because right after the bit where he mentions cauchy sequences, he then goes on to explain real numbers as equivalence classes of cauchy sequences and also points out the logical problems with such a definition.

Just keep watching, faggot. HE HAS A PHD. Why do you assume he is this retarded?

All of the criticisms you have of him are there because you have not seen his entire series. You barely know what his message is.

MODS
MODS
MODS

this fucking meme...

the problem is that some retarted anon take this seriously...

File: Reddit1.jpg (59KB, 441x372px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 441x372px

>>8607433
>HE HAS A PHD
He LARPed to get a U R SMRT paper, that doesn't make him an actual doctor with the mind of a mathematician.

b2r