[red_trumpet]

Yeah, they should have heard about ZFC and have a notion what a formal proof is. On the other hand, I'm not sure your last sentence is really that relevant.

> They don't know anything about type theory, implications of the law of excluded middle, univalent foundations, any of that stuff

I'm doing a PhD in algebraic geometry, and that stuff isn't relevant at all. To me "everything is a set" pretty much applies. Hell, even the stacks-project[1] contains that phrase!

[1] https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0009

[JoeyBananas]

> I'm doing a PhD in algebraic geometry, and that stuff isn't relevant at all.

Yes, exactly. These are topics that 99% of legit mathematicians don't know or care about.

It's like saying "I'm a computer expert" when you only know Python, and then a computer engineer that designs CPUs starts laughing at you

[Tainnor]

I don't understand the point of your comments.

[JoeyBananas]

My claim is that mathematics as practiced by mathematicians is not as rigorous as they think it is, and infact they're not even aware of the advances in rigorous mathematics that they're not using. Even though those advances are super important.

[Tainnor]

What important discoveries have you made using your supposedly "more rigorous" mathematics?

[JoeyBananas]

Loaded question

[Tainnor]

Well, you've been claiming that these advances are "super important" and that set theory is not rigorous, but you have provided no evidence for either claim.