>>13158165>There is something compelling about the idea that if something is unimaginable, it's to be rejectedthats retarded. 99% concepts in USEFUL math (functional analysis, complex analysis, abstract algebra, and so on) cant be readily visualized by the human brain anyway. Its a non-argument.
>Is he alone in this or is this a group that shares this approach and is at least somewhat active in the academia?yes, hes a tenured professor. however he is completely alone in his autism, AFAIK. i dont know any other academic who agrees with him
>Is it true that he rejects even proofs by mathematical inductionI dunno about that but that doesnt sound out of line with him. Such a dumb take.
>Apparently he constructed Calculus and Linear Algebra with all the stuff he rejected, that's pretty impressive. Linear algebra is easy without reals, but I have no idea how fourier analysis or functional analysis is supposed to work without them. His interpretation of calculus, and even basic geometry, is a joke. Its the most clumsy, awkward, unweildy piece of shit you could imagine and he actually expects it to be easier for children to learn (it isnt) or for engineers to put into practice (definitely not)
