>>8831410
link to video please

>>8831410
I'd agree with him if he didn't mean "mostly finitist, strictly dealing with rational numbers..." by "complete, self-contained, logical..."
He pretends to be anti-philosophical but his positions really are entirely philosophical. Because it's impossible to perform some computations or write a decimal representation of some number then we can't talk about such computations or objects?

File: svbBiHr.jpg (73KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1280x720px

>>8831410
So this is what reals do to a man...

>>8831410
Reals
not even once

>>8831480
So how does he handle irrationals? Do they just not exist?

>>8832993
they might exist, but we do not understand them yet because the way we deal with "real" numbers currently isn't coherent.

>>8832993
We know there are as many numbers in the interval (0,1) as natural numbers. We also know the greatest natural number is 10^200, therefore there are 10^200 numbers strictly between 0 and 1, therefore only numbers between 0 and 1 are rationals, this argument can be extended from (0, 1) to entire real line, from what follows that all reals are rational

>>8831410
>believe in complex numbers
>reject reals
Is it possible to take him seriously?

>>8833332
he doesn't reject reals, he rejects the way we construct reals.

The construction of complex numbers from there is trivial.

>>8833356
No he rejects the reals and analytic completion in all its forms.

He just applies the usual construction of complex numbers to rationals instead of reals forming the rational complex numbers.
You don't end up with an algebraically closed field, but you can still do most of the things you can do with the real complex numbers, like rotating 2d vectors.

>>8833356
Why then does he think numbers that describe length of an unit circle or diagonal of unit square don't exist but has no problems with the existence of number that multiplied by itself gives negative number?
To use similar argument as he uses against reals, why won't he write down decimal expansion of this [math]i[/math] number of his, and if he can't do that then the number doesn't exist, on the same premise he claims [math]\mathrm{e}[/math] and [math]\pi[/math] don't exist

>>8833331
I think that's wrong as 1/2 is between 0 and 1 and is rational. My point is that if all decimals terminate because the naturals are bounded, how do you prove that a given number isn't the ratio of two rationals?

>>8833617
that's pretty easy mate, that's high school math for things like "square root of two"

Is wildberger a constructivist?

>>8833659
He's an ultrafinitist.

>>8833319
>>8833356

Don't give him credibility. He thinks that if you have two circles, each of which touches the other's center, the two circles don't intersect; hence Euclid was wrong.

He doesn't just reject choice, he rejects the axiom of infinity. The way he does it is by strawmanning it. He leaves out the definition of inductive sets and then says that it is nothing but fairy tails.