How right is he?
>>7691080
not at all
Right that the solution accepted to get things over with is ugly?
Yes.
But he has no alternative for anything close to research level mathematics, and moreover it appears he thinks he knows more about the proposals and alternatives than he does.
And don't get started now with the ontological stance on mathematics, this has no right or wrong answer, almost by definition.
>>7691080
100%
>>7691080
He's 1 spread
>>7691080
He's like the math version of a flat earther
left
>>7691080
Can anyone explain this meme to me. He's just a glorified residue integration machine right?
>>7691080
He's wrong, R's construction is valid.
>>7691570
He's a crackpot who believes that the "Dedekind cut" construction of the deals is insufficiently rigorous; which is 1. Wrong and 2.Ignores a very simple synthetic construction, not to mention the other constructions from Q.
>>7691707
>>He's wrong, R's construction is valid.
valid according to what rules of validity ?
He's 100% right
>>7691707
Good job understanding absolutely nothing.
Try constructing R without LEM, go ahead.
The question was never whether he's right (he is) but whether it's useful to be doing what he's doing
He’s a poser. He says infinity doesn’t exists and then writes theorems which use quantifiers. Also, I don’t get it: why call pure mathematics something limited by the size of the Universe? That’s like saying drawing a square is 2abstract4u.
>>7692787
>then writes theorems which use quantifiers.
I do not think that he does
>Thinking infinity exists
>>7693761
Do you think he knows he's a meme?
>>7693764
He formats internet comments like this.
I'm pretty confident saying "I don't think so."
>>7692633
So LEM is "invalid"?
Anyway, Wildberger rarely mentions LEM. He prefers more political rhetoric than actually explaining the difference between classical and constructivist mathematics, apparently because he believes he needs to indoctrinate young students into constructivism. This is why he is largely seen as a joke.
>>7692703
>if you assume ZF
but that's not the point.
The fact that sets are not defined properly leads to bullshit like real numbers.
>>7693798
But that's not a fact.
>>7693779
Except he's not a constructivist
