〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

I think the main thing that mathematical finitists get wrong is that numbers “actually” exist—let alone ought to be a certain way.

As a finitist, I just prefer my theories stay within the realm of things hat can be explicitly exhibited. It's helpful that I can do lots of calculus in the context of this perspective tho, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time.

What do you mean by “explicitly exhibited”

Finitist that doesn't provide new pathways to old problems is a waste of time, but actually lots of beautiful math is possible without reals or limits. Obvs twitter is not the place to provide through evidence to this claim, but I intend to do it in the right medium.