Highly Controversial Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKy_VTBq0yk

Oh cool, some YouTuber's inane interpretations of how centuries' worth of academia is ``wrong''. I'm sure infinite sets do not exist, and rather than publishing a paper, this teenager made some sort of hilarious video instead. This will obviously shake the face of mathematics forever, instead of having no impact at all.

>>2
rather than publishing a paper
Scientific periodicals are controlled by ZOG.

no impact at all
"Impact" is the way ZOG controls science. ZOG decides for you what you need to know.

Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

wat teh fuq is zog

i enjoy n j wildberger's math stuff, but what does it mean to "exist"? if human math is just constructs in our minds, surely infinite sets can exist. a lot of this kind of stuff is more philosophy than math.

>>6
How do you know about "infinite set"? Who told you about its existence?

>>7
i read about it in math books/wikipedia

>>8
Who wrote them? Why should you believe them?

>>9
Wikipedia has a policy of being neutral and accurate. They can't not be neutral and accurate with their policies because that would go against their policies.

>>10
Who decides what is "neutral and accurate"?

>>11
It's a self-referential policy that defines itself. Kind of like the first compiler compiling itself.

>>7
It exists because it's an abstract construct that can be explored and have practical consequences as a result of studying it.

>>13
abstract construct exists because it's an abstract construct
wtf are you smoking, dude?

>>13
Of course it's a valid abstract construct which has practical and computational consequences. Don't bother arguing with the ultrafinitist, his beliefs are inconsistent and he doesn't seem to be aware of it. I made a similar mistake mistake of arguing with him in the past, and now I know better than to waste my time.

>>15
has practical and computational consequences
Can you imagine a “physical process” whose outcome could depend on whether there’s a set larger than the set of integers but smaller than the set of real numbers? If so, what would it look like? -

>>16
Things are a bit unclear with set theory - some axioms are independent. However, things are much more clearer with arithmetic - which you seem to deny as well because all models of it are infinite (countable or not, although there's only one standard model which is countably infinite, the rest are non-standard and involve higher ordinals). If the ontology is arithmetically realist (which it has to be if the processes in our brain responsible for our mind happen to be computable) then physics is completlely dependent on an infinity of computations (getting awfuly close to uncomputable stuff here if you want to talk at the meta-level). I've also seen some physicists try to see what the physical consequences of a set theoretical ontology would be like and some of their results are pretty interesting as well, although I'm somewhat skeptical of them.

Either way, either physics is how some math looks from the inside or there's magical matter and experience which obeys no mechanistic laws (whatever that means, I can't conceive it) we'll never understand and we might as well give up all human endeavours and become hippies or religious zealots.

>>17
You're still a dumass.

>>18
Very clever refutation of my points.

>>17
So, where is the “physical process”?

>>20
In the case of mathematical ontologies, the physical is just a way of talking about the math you happen to be part of.

>>20
hmm, I don't know, define what is a physical process, and maybe we can work something out. We'll basically need to restate the proposition, there exists a set with cardinality greater than set of the integers,  but smaller than the set of real numbers, using terms that relate to something that you call a physical process. If we can find a representation for the real numbers in a "physical process" and a representation for the integers in a "physical process," then we can reformulate the original abstract question using a new vocabulary.

Let X be a something in a "physical process" that corresponds to the integers.
Let Y be something in a "physical process" that corresponds to the real numbers?
Is there a thing Z in a "physical process" that has more stuff in it than X, but less stuff in it than Y?

Now make a machine that simulates the question, and push the on button. There ya go.

>>21
How is talking depends on "infinity"?

>>22
define what is a physical process
Something you can detect empirically.

Let Y be something in a "physical process" that corresponds to the real numbers?
Where did found such an Y?

>>23
What is detection?

>>23
How is talking depends on "infinity"?
Because to model the finite you always end up touching the infinite at the meta-level and to truly understand something you do need a meta-level.

>>23
someone else responding to
How is talking depends on "infinity"?

Any talking consist of communication, and communication usually involves the expression and interpretation of ideas. Infinity is an idea. There are many ideas that can be further understood and explored by making explicit use of the idea of infinity. Not every idea has dependence on infinity. But what would stop you from applying it when it becomes appropriate? And even then, why wouldn't you expand an idea, even if it didn't appear to be appropriate or useful? It can be enjoyable to think about these things, even if they don't lead you anywhere. That fact that the thought occurred to you makes it appropriate.

>>26
Infinity is an idea.
Isn't it just a buzzword?

There are many ideas that can be further understood and explored by making explicit use of the idea of infinity.
How explicit use of an undefined buzzword explores "many ideas"?

>>25
you always end up touching the infinite
dare to prove?

at the meta-level
FTW is the "meta-level"? Are you on crack?

>>27
Countable things, recursion, infinitesimal calculus, algorithm analysis.

Probably the first concept passed to kids is the notion of countable sets, then basic arithmetic. Dreaming of a extremely great amount of anything, which turns out to be uncountable, isn't rocket science. Even kids can do this.

>>28
Countable things, recursion, algorithm analysis.
so how do they "touch the infinite"?

infinitesimal calculus,
wtf are "infinitesimals"? are there an experiment to detect them?

>>29
Sounds correct. Jewish parents teach their kids "dreaming of a extremely great amount of anything", because some person, they call "God", promised them. Fucking religious racists.

>>30
Words don't exist other than as ideas (they are just interpretations of physical and electromagnetic waves) and you're a fag. You will promptly be honor-killed by your Arab parents because of that.

>>31
Go scrub another toilet.

>>31
Useful words associate with empirical phenomena. Does the word "Yahweh" has something behind it, beside sound?

>>27
FTW is the "meta-level"?
A metatheory is one that talks about theories.
For example, there is the branch of metamathematics which explores what logic, computation, actually have to be.
Whenever you have a theory, it's "meta-level" is when you talk about what that theory is as opposed to merely assuming it and working on it. It's foundational work.

>>34
Sounds like a pseudoscience that talks about a much of nothing. No wonder it's based on "infinitesimals".

>>35
Completely consistent for a NEET who never could make it past Pre-calculus.

>>36
I think you need to go read a book instead of making spewing as you make your daily rounds on here. Seriously, in the amount of time that you post on lame ass shit on you, you could have like, maybe learned how to code better.

>>35
These matters are not a science and has never been. It's a philosophy about something abstract, it deals with imaginary ideas. You probably equate the abstract with non-existence. If this is the case, nobody would ever bother imagining anything and we could not advance past the agrarian age: after all if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.

>>37
I'm not sure who are you confusing me with, as I post here only every few days. Kodak, perhaps?

I'm only shitposting like that because the only way to exorcise him from here is by insulting him relentlessly. I feel sorry for the guy, as his life does seem kind of crap from what he has candidly told us a few times, but that doesn't mean that he, like the crazy guy of the-OS-which-must-not-be-named, is completely insufferable and we don't have to put up with him.

It's uncivilized, yes. And I normally wouldn't want to silence the other part of a discussion, but he is impervious to reason and, sadly, completely serious.

>>39
This coming from the villiage idiot. Why don't you do /prog a favor and go jump off a bridge.

>>40
There's a violation of the ₆₆Three Person Lemma⁹⁹ in this thread in case you didn't realize already.

>>41
Oh geeze. Just fuck off you no talent bitch.

>>42
You do realize that you're insulting yourself with that post, don't you?

>>43
I hope that you're not the same clueless idiot that just said having a for loop in recursion is kind of confusing.

>>44
I didn't post in that thread, but if you actually paid attention to what I was trying to say in >>41, you'd have realized that you were incorrectly assuming that multiple Anonymous posters (in this thread) were the same persons, when in fact they weren't. Not that any of this circlejerk is productive in any way or form... I'll withdraw from this thread for now.

>>45
Whatever faggot.

>>44
Tail recursion is superior. For loops are for toilet scrubbers.

>>47
Go tuck yourself into bed and leave programming to real men who know that code isn't just something you read in a book you pansy

>>48
My mom tucks my in, faggot.

>>48
lol back to your java in 24h tutorial, toilet scrubber

>>50
iron is a scam