So what about the New Jersey Wild Burger makes his beliefs cray?
>>7951280
What are you trying to ask?
>>7951280
He does topology like a mad man, namely that he he does it WITHOUT the irrational numbers. Not just that, he redefined all of trigonometry so that you don't have to use irrational numbers
>>7951284
Why do people think he's a quack?
>>7951341
>Why do people think he's a quack?
He is not.
His disagreements are sound and logical, people just can't think for themselves.
>>7951336
But why? What about a number like pi? How in the fuck do you use trigonometric functions without pi getting involved?
>>7951367
https://youtu.be/lcIbCZR0HbU
>What about a number like pi?
Pi is a meta-number according Wildberger, whatever that is.
>>7951367
You dont use transcendental functions like sin cos exp and instead use rational functions
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281255489_Rotor_Coordinates_Vector_Trigonometry_and_Kepler-Newton_Orbits
It's really neat, but I dont think he can solve easy differential equations like
y'=y
>>7951341
Because he's trying to establish a form of mathematics that doesn't use infinite sets or real numbers, and most of practical and high level mathematics relies very heavily on these concepts. He describes his alternative as simpler and more "beautiful," but this is really just a consequence of our axioms being chosen to accommodate the direction that mathematics was already going in at the time, rather than being chosen for the sake of mathematical beauty. The advantage of his approach to theory is that geometry, algebra and trigonometry could be taught rigorously (i.e. proof-writing) at the high school level. However, in the context of math applied to physical/practical problems (for which most people learn math anyway), and upper level mathematics, his approach would provide no great benefits. Furthermore, he doesn't give a good reason for why his approach is better in practice, and the stuff about his approach causing a mathematical revolution is simply delusional. It indicates to me that he has some sort of personality disorder. I'm not saying the man isn't smart or isn't a good presenter, but I don't think he's in touch with reality.
>>7952142
Nice summary
>>7951449
I don't speak for Prof. Wildberger but I believe he isn't fond of differential equations--or analysis in general. The idea of taking a derivative is itself reliant on the reals and is therefore logically inconsistent, or something along that argumentative path.
I think that Wildberger would say that something like y=y' is intrinsically meaningless in a pure mathematical context
nothing is actually that crazy, and there's a lot of people that don't disagree with some of the things he says
the problem people have is the extent to which he takes his views and how insistently he pushes his opinions
many people are kind of uncomfortable with all the implications of infinite sets as used in math, but few people actually try to reconstruct modern math without them.
what he's doing is a really interesting exercise actually, it's just he's an asshat about it that's driving people away
>>7951280
Daily reminder that anyone who doesn’t apply Wildberger transforms is a meme mathematician.
[eqn]\pi \,\stackrel{\mathscr W}{=}\, \frac{355}{113}[/eqn]
[eqn]\frac{1 \,+\, \sqrt 5}{2} \,\stackrel{\mathscr W}{=}\, \frac{144}{89}[/eqn]
[eqn]\sum_{n \,=\, 0}^\infty n \,=\, \frac{{\mathrm e}^{\mathrm i\, \pi}}{11.999\dots} \,\stackrel{\mathscr W}{\mathrm{then}\, \infty \,=\, -\frac{1}{12}[/eqn]
>>7952316
Wild hotdog is the best /sci/ meme desu.
>>7951280
GIVIN MONEY TO DA HOOD NOW WE ALL WIN
>>7952230
This. His work is actually kind of interesting, but he puts on this smug, almost condescending tone when talking about real numbers and infinite sets that just completely drowns out anything he's trying to say.
>>7952142
Thanks, that's exactly the type of response I was looking for when I made this thread.
bunmp
He is correct.
>>7953216
It's easier to just say what you mean and start the topic with what you want said. This is why science writes summaries to its conclusions and based on what I just read we're still waiting on that summary.
The job of summarizing a work accurately is the job of the original researcher. This thread could've been must more constructive (pun intended) if he'd written a properly hedged summary. He could even have made the thread himself, and it would've been welcome simply because it was actually relevant and well-presented. If anyone thought /sci/ wasn't open to new ideas, they didn't get that idea from lurking /sci/.
