Joe Rogan Experience #919 - Neil deGrasse Tyson
Video Statistics and Information
Channel: PowerfulJRE
Views: 11,229,854
Rating: 4.7562037 out of 5
Keywords: Joe Rogan Experience, Joe Rogan, podcast, Neil deGrasse Tyson, NDT, NdGT, Neil Tyson, space, cosmos, JRE #919, 919, comedy, comedian, jokes, stand up, funny, laugh, mma, ufc, Ultimate Fighting Championship
Id: PhHtBqsGAoA
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 134min 25sec (8065 seconds)
Published: Tue Feb 21 2017
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
Facepalm.
I knew that NDG spouts shit about stuff he doesn't understand already (like Rationalia), but I would have hoped that someone with his qualifications would at least understand this much maths.
He's obviously seen it at some point, and yet he comes with the knowledge of someone who's learnt what they have through Numberphile, despite the fact that he should be able to easily understand the basic notions of this sort of thing if he'd seen them in any respectable way.
This isn't badmaths. NdGT is clearly working in the system ZFC- + GCH + P4(ω) exists + ¬P5(ω) exists.
No kidding.
A lot of things are much easier once you realize that everything is isomorphic to Z.
Here's an archived version of the linked post.
I feel like he's talking about things that he once learned, but now barely remembers.
The context of this too is that he's refuting Joe Rogan's claim that an infinite set contains everything, which is easily refuted without talking about sizes of infinity. "There are infinite numbers, but not everything is a number..."
I was hoping that he meant to say there were more transcendental numbers than algebraic, but clearly that's not it; also if by "irrational" he meant "algebraic" he'd still be wrong, because the algebraic numbers are countable, and earlier he had said there were more irrationals than counting numbers.
I really feel like Neil just always has to come across as smart, no matter if what he's saying is incorrect, in order to fit his image as mystic ambassador of science or something.
If we are to be charitable, it seems that by "irrational" he meant "algebraic irrational". Of course the algebraic irrationals are countable, so he is still wrong on that part, and the "5 alephs" thing remains nonsense no matter how you interpret it.