>Talking with girl about foundations of mathematics
>She defends set theory and ZFC as a foundation
>She actually believes law of excluded middle is essential to mathematics. Apparently unaware of work of Bishop on analysis etc.
>Still believing in Formalism 2016.
What are the best absurd results of classic mathematics that you can use to red-pill these plebs with?
What a dumb cunt lol. Girls suck at math.
>>8187102
>absurd results
How about "distance does not exist because real numbers aren't real". Oh wait, that's an absurd result of Wildburgerism.
>>8187102
Lol, mathematics is nothing but a physical construct. It only manfiests itself in writing, neural firings in our brain (thoughts), and so on.
You can define it in any way you want. What matters is what kind of definition will lead to the best results, and allow us to construct the most predictive theories possible for the real world.
Nobody defends ZFC as foundation, you're making stuff up
>>8187392
I take ZFC+large cardinals+reflection principles+~CH
>>8187440
"not CH" to enable working with which sets?
>>8187133
> implying mathematics isn't the word of God
>>8188029
> implying the word of god isn't just in your head
>>8187788
CH is false.
>>8188050
Just like math
