>>12207394Grifter
There are people with similar positions to him, but he makes horrible arguments for his positions.
For instance, he argues that the concept of a Cauchy sequence is illogical because a Cauchy sequence can start off being identical to a different sequence for a very large number of initial entries. There is absolutely nothing in logic or mathematics that suggests any reason that this is illogical, he just waves his hands and says he doesn't like it.
He also thinks numbers should be dismissed if they can't be computed digit-for-digit in finite time. He criticizes the concepts of "function", "infinite sets", etc. as being untenable because they aren't clear, but then claims that the square root of 2 isn't a number and that (extremely anti-intuitively) the diagonal of a unit square doesn't actually intersect the corner of the square.
He also claims that we cannot know certain things about massive integers because they cannot all "fit in the known universe", however, this depends on theories about the size of the universe, so he's introducing something much more complicated (cosmology), into his framework.
His new trigonometry is just silly: "spread" is literally just the squared sine of an angle. By not allowing use of sine, cosine, or tangent, he is just robbing mathematics of a certain expressive power without any logical backing for doing so.
He hates infinite sets, but still adores rational numbers, but to avoid the awkward fact that rational numbers are an infinite set, he just renames it to "type". He hates "axiomatics", but doesn't seem to realize that we could just try to codify his assumptions as axioms as well. It's really just skirting the question.
He's DEFINITELY a grifter who found a means of "fighting the status quo" without actually having to do any real work. Take very basic mathematics and then place arbitrary restrictions on it, voila.
