[93 / 9 / ?]
Constructivist/Intuitionistic/Finitist Math Talk
Okay, so I have an undergraduate degree in the maths and we didn't get into any of this, so now I'm just a casual pleb who studies on his own time, and I've been interested in this POV for awhile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3V9UNN4XLE
This is Norman Wildberger, who I came across when looking up algebraic topology (he has a course up on youtube). And his rejection of the reals fascinated me, and peoples' response seems like it boils down to "He's a crank-- but yeah, he's got a point. But he's a crank. But also his math is solid and his teaching and publications are fairly well regarded. But... no."
After watching this and the next two videos, I'm really taken by what he's saying, but the limits of my maths are typical (US) stuff: some linear algebra, some discrete, some analysis, some topology.
A comment somewhere said that he gets a lot of flack, mostly from people who haven't really taken a very good hard look at ZFC and other fundamental topics (they might know what ZFC is but couldn't tell you what the axioms are, etc)
So what do you think? Are the reals a problem? Where does the problem stem from? Is it a bunch of hogwash that you can forcefully knock down with a clear argument? Maybe, being a philsophical issue in a sense, you, like me, enjoy the added perspective but can work in modern mathematics without looking too hard at ZFC/etc.
Okay, so I have an undergraduate degree in the maths and we didn't get into any of this, so now I'm just a casual pleb who studies on his own time, and I've been interested in this POV for awhile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3V9UNN4XLE
This is Norman Wildberger, who I came across when looking up algebraic topology (he has a course up on youtube). And his rejection of the reals fascinated me, and peoples' response seems like it boils down to "He's a crank-- but yeah, he's got a point. But he's a crank. But also his math is solid and his teaching and publications are fairly well regarded. But... no."
After watching this and the next two videos, I'm really taken by what he's saying, but the limits of my maths are typical (US) stuff: some linear algebra, some discrete, some analysis, some topology.
A comment somewhere said that he gets a lot of flack, mostly from people who haven't really taken a very good hard look at ZFC and other fundamental topics (they might know what ZFC is but couldn't tell you what the axioms are, etc)
So what do you think? Are the reals a problem? Where does the problem stem from? Is it a bunch of hogwash that you can forcefully knock down with a clear argument? Maybe, being a philsophical issue in a sense, you, like me, enjoy the added perspective but can work in modern mathematics without looking too hard at ZFC/etc.
