>>13800876For mathematics on 4chan, it's set theory.
>complains about set theory being bullshit, is personally offended by ZFC, rages against cardinality, cant grasp the concept of infinity, countable vs uncountable confuses them for no reasonFull-blown pseud, zero fucking exceptions
>thinks set theory is difficult and unnecessarily abstract (hasn't figured out that's the whole point), doesn't grasp infinity (mostly because they treat it like a number), struggles to understand how infinite sets can be countable as a resultAmateur, but that's all it says to me. They'll get there.
>understands that set theory is intentionally abstract, sees the usefulness of set theory but understands that getting results isn't the measurement of truth, their complaints about set theory are centered on existence statements, vacuous axioms, and taking it as the central dogma of modern mathematics when there's no reason to do this besides convenience for studentsUsually an expert, although this group and cranks align far too often.
Away from here, you can generally rank how big of a pseud they are by the following order:
--their skills in any field of mathematics outside of writing existence proofs or algebra (especially geometry, geometric analysis is the THE filter for pseuds)
--if they've read a plethora of modern research, but none of the historical papers/treatise/etc.
--their opinion on statistics, unless it has to do with how too many working statisticians are shitty mathematicians
--their opinion on computer science, unless they can distinguish between a computer scientist and a computer progammer
--their opinion on engineering and/or engineers
--whether or not they like chemistry but think physics is bullshit
--how offended they are that other fields use mathematics
--how offended they are that other fields make more money using mathematics than a typical mathematician
That's pretty much the de facto ranking for pseudy-ness in mathematics.
