Comments by "" (@tinkeringtim7999) on "This Is the Calculus They Won't Teach You" video.

@AWellRestedDog Fair play, in which case I think the tone of the video was a little too much towards "this is the story" rather than "this is a story". I highly recommend Don Zeilberger, his lecture on finite basis for probability is brilliant. He's able to hold his own against basically everyone else in the field; that's almost impossible unless you're the once standing on firmer foundations than the rest.
3
@AWellRestedDog I hope you do make more videos going deeper I future. I'm glad you took my criticism as intended - to strengthen rather than attack your content. To be fair, LORE is in capital letters in the title. But I think with video content that's not enough, it was the cognitive dissonance between what I clicked on and how it was worded that I think first made me question the overall communication. For what it's worth, I have been developing a fairly unique perspective on analysis where the real numbers are re-interpreted as topological numbers and clearly distinguished from the number system we habitually use to represent real numbers. If you fancy dropping me a message to chat about the nature of the reals and how they really (pun intended) relate to rational and complex numbers, drop me a PM.
3
Better ask someone who really gets it on a deep level, and can show alternative formulations of everything useful from calculus - I recommend Norman Wildberger.
2
@AWellRestedDog I should have used quotes on "topological numbers". Topology is the most fundamental subject you'll learn, it's actually ludicrously simple but for some reason is usually taught as if it's a mountain to climb before you can see. Definitely find a good book that speaks to you and get a good sense before you go too far in anything else (I like Armstrong's intro book, Springer). As for numbers, well, what exactly that word means still isn't a settled issue among mathematicians. The idea of casting them as "topological numbers" basically means Reals behave like numbers algebraically but don't carry any inherent notion of size (you have to pair them with a unit to get that), and require at least one notion of infinity in order for some of them to exist (which is the interesting bit).
2
Cool video but your presentation of what Newton was like and the story he discovered it is all just the standard "don't scratch the surface" propaganda. All that stuff about being first and better and having more results comes out of him chairing an inquest to prove he discovered it first, which found in his favour, and was a hot political point in the British vs other European empires cod-piece swinging contests. Newton didn't so much keep himself to himself, as was just obnoxious, arrogant, and vindictive against anyone who didn't worship him. As Lucasian chair, if you didn't take his world view and agree all the knowledge should be attributed to Newton's genius you'd struggle to have a career in academia in England. When you strip away what he actually did as truly original work, and stop attributing genuis to him for the fact other people actually made sense of his largely just BS ramblings and half truths ... he wasn't the father of anything more or less than the idea you don't have to bee too logical about science if you have enough authority to gaslight a new perspective of reality into existence. Newton didn't propel us forward, he held us back approx 150 to 200 years.
1