>>12480779>dedekind cutsAlso, the """definition""" she gives for sqrt(2), even assuming the delusion of """infinite sets""", is wrong. The lower cut needs to be {q | q^2 < 2 or q < 0} and the upper cut needs to be {q | q^2 > 2 and q > 0}. She ignores the q < 0/q > 0 conditions, so negative numbers like -5 are in her upper cut, not her lower cut (pic related).
>>12480978This is probably why she didn't try to do arithmetic with it lmao. The absolute state of """real number""" theorists. Additionally, Wildberger is once again vindicated, because she only gave the basic babby example of sqrt(2) since it requires checking 2 conditions, which is why basically every analysis textbook uses this """definition.""" If you want to define pi, good luck checking an infinite number of conditions lmao.
>she actually says "math is built out of simpler math">proceeds to define integers with """infinite sets""" corresponding to an equivalence class of pairs of natural numbersShe literally assumes the existence of an actual infinity to get her definition of the integers and claims that somehow simpler than the natural numbers lmao. And yes, I know by simpler, she means "more fundamental", but that doesn't make it any less delusional.
The only good thing about this video is that she admitted the a(
>>>/x/)iom of infinity is pure cope that mathematicians would like to believe so they just assumed it was true.
