You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

SanguineEmpiricist comments on Open Thread, Jun. 8 - Jun. 14, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Gondolinian 08 June 2015 12:04AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (153)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 June 2015 03:43:58PM *  6 points [-]

I recently stumbled upon the Wikipedia entry on finitism (there is even ultrafinitism). However, the article on ultrafinitism mentions that no satisfactory development in this field exists at present. I'm wondering in which way the limitation to finite mathematical objects (say a set of natural numbers with a certain largest number n) would limit 'everyday' mathematics. What kind of mathematics would we still be able do (cryptography, analysis, linear algebra …)?

Comment author: SanguineEmpiricist 10 June 2015 01:15:24AM 0 points [-]

Bishop built real analysis constructively right? Jayne's probability theory is from finite sets as well.