>>13010014I think that NJW makes some valid points and is certainly a skilled rhetorician. When I was in my first year of undergrad, I actually watched the following debate live:
> https://youtu.be/WabHm1QWVCAThis was my introduction to NJW.
I've been trying to summarise his views over the years
> doesn't believe in infinite sets> doesn't believe in axiom of choice> can't complete infinite processes His views can't be contained in any one of those phrases. But he constantly suggests that mathematics should computable and verifiable -- in the sense that we may easily write things down and compare notes.
I play by less restrictive rules than he does. I can still write down a mathematical argument for other mathematicians to verify. But it might invoke the axiom of choice from time to time. Sure, it might lead to the existence of a set S which I can't explicitly write down and do a lot of computations with. But hopefully I can compute that S satisfies some desired properties, which is precisely why I invoked the axiom of choice to show that S exists.
Basically, I have a lot of respect for Wildberger. Kudos to him for doing the maths he does. But his way is too based for me.
