Formal mathematical proofs are much more readable / understandable when animated, very nice video.

@Mathologer

9 жыл бұрын

+Mortadha Alaa Great, glad it works well for you :)

The proof is great. But the presentation was really elegant and understandable. Beautiful all the way around.

Thank you so much for making these high quality videos. I had heard many years ago that there was a perfect triangle in every triangle, but never really knew what that meant. Now I get it! The Illuminati bit was very clever and funny. I'm off to play with triangles

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+Aaron Gutierrez Have fun :)

9:26 Look how many red angles are in this construction? 6! 6 blue, 6 green, 6 red - 666! Also it comes from perfect triangle!! Illuminati CONFIRMED!

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+Qbek Absolutely :)

@adb012

6 жыл бұрын

"Look how many red angles are in this construction? 6!" You are wrong. 6!=720. There are nowhere near 720 red angles there.

17 years ago when I was drawing one of my fantasy nation, It looked exactly like this triangle, or rather the star inside. But the star was constructed using trisection of all three angles, so that's it. I even colored it red, green and blue. And of course since i loved maths I counted how big were all the angles. Using these!!!!!! Without knowing the proof or the theorem.

Mathloger has 9 letter; 9 is 3 * 3; Illuminati has 10 letters; 10 is 2 *5 5-2= 3 3+3+3= 9 9 is also 3^2 9-3=6 A right triangle with catheti of 3 and 4 has a hipotenuse of 5 3+4+5= 12 1+2=3 12= 3*4 confirmed has 9 letters 3 +4 = 7 9- 7 =2 sqrt (9)= sqrt(3^2)= 3 A triangle has 3 sides, 3 angles, however, it''s 2D; 3/2= 3/2 "two" has 3 letters "three" has 5 letters "five" has 4 letters 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 Illuminati confirmed Half-life has 8 letters the hyfen may count as a digit, resulting in 9 digits as said before, 9 is 3^2 as a trinagle is 2D, we must take the quare rrot the square root of 9 is 3 Half Life 3 Confirmed, it was made by the illuminatis Aristoteles was an Illuminati

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+Pedro Franca WOW :)

@krowenki5333

8 жыл бұрын

+Pedro Franca , Mathologer is 10, you forgot an o unless you mean it.

@pedroff_1

8 жыл бұрын

Zachary Silanga I swear I thought the name of the channel was mathloger, now I notice the "o"

@kamalamishra2701

7 жыл бұрын

"

@mohammedabdullahomer5513

6 жыл бұрын

Well,as O is repeated; it can be said as 9 DIFFERENT letters

Amazing how you manage to make tricky proofs look so easy!

The irony of this beautiful theorem is that, the equilateral triangle is the easiest of triangles to construct and it's at the middle of one of the hardest angle division, trisection !

I'm so glad youtube channels like yours, veritasium, vihart, vsauce and all of bradys channels have made learning fun again

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+Erric Glinz Yes, I really think these sort of videos can make a big difference in the way people experience mathematics and science, and that's why I started making them :)

Your laughter is worth making a ringtone out of it...🤣 Someone should put together all your giggles in one video ahah

OMG I POSTED ON THE FIRST VIDEO ABOUT PIZZA, BEFORE SEEING THE END OF THIS WHICH REFERENCES PIZZA!!!! So again: What is the volume of a pizza with radius z and height a? Answer: Pi*z*z*a

@f.jideament

5 жыл бұрын

I dropped everything in my life to the ground for searching mysteries of pizza 3 years ago after i watched this video. I searched every single possible source about circles, triangles and pizzas. Met with Gennaro Lombardi's family, had an interview about similarities between their white clothes with illuminatist white clothes and stuff. They punched me and put a piece of pizza in my mouth and throwed me into the trash. Pizza was delicious. So i went to the Maya temples and Pyramids for understanding deeply what is going on about the pizza. At the second year of my research. I ordered an Italian pizza in Mexico. They said they had no Italian pizza and then i took the Mexican one. It was very hot, burned all of my stomach and I stayed at a local hospital for 1 year until they find a new stomach for me. In this time, i was still searching for mysteries of pizza on the internet. Then they found a new stomach for me 3 months ago. They said it was from a child who died in a pizza shop because of an triangular shaped table. They said he was running around in the shop and then suddenly he just smashed his head to the sharp corner of the table and died. If the table was circular shaped the boy was alive still. But no, it was triangular. So now i'm so fat because i ate too much pizza in the last couple of months i can't even run. But you know what? Life is beautiful. Thanks.

@Foxxey

5 жыл бұрын

@@f.jideament iS tHiS a rEaL sToRy?

@seeseefok7659

4 жыл бұрын

pizza XD

Thank you for an excellent presentation along with a superb animation.

You can do this infinitely inwards on the equilateral triangles you have just made.

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+David Oakes Absolutely :)

This is a really good proof, and the animation is good too!!

U r such a good mathematician. I can t understand why so few people watch ur vídeos

Sir, many thanks. You are a great mathematician. Thanks a lot for the nice videos in your channel. God bless you

this guy makes science funny and i appreciate that

beautiful explained in few minutes ..thank you :)

I've loved mathematics for a long time now but I never quite could warm myself up for Analysis or Geometry. At least for Geometry that's changing right now, so: Thanks! Great stuff.

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+AntsanParcher Great, comments like this make my day :)

+Mathologer what software did you use for the geometry animations? I'm looking for a good geometry drawing/animation software that I can use with students. Great video, I enjoyed it very much!

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+oomegalinux For this video I used a mix of Adobe Illustrator, Mathematica and the basic animation features in Apples Keynote. As usual all this took ages to put together. Probably not really practical if you are considering doing lots of animations like but once off it was doable.

@DouglasKubler

2 жыл бұрын

@@Mathologer The animations you produce are awesome. Have any your technique or tools changed in 6 years? I wish you had a video dedicated to video production.

KZread won't let me reply directly but Joe Ferrara MD asks why this doesn't imply that angle trisections are constructible; since equilateral triangles are constructible couldn't we just construct that equilateral triangle in the middle and connect corners, thus trisecting the angles of the outer triangle? The answer is that when we say equilateral triangles are constructible what we really mean is given two corners of an equilateral triangle we can construct the third. But this fact doesn't help us unless two corners of the equilateral triangle can be constructed by other means.

A wonderful exemple of efficient teaching and learning in mathematics.An harmonious combination of enactive, visual and symbolic approacheses. No too much likes - no problem -is an innovative way..

it is undoubtedly the best proof for morleys theorem. amazing.

Draw an equilateral triangle of side r and vertices A, B and C. Now draw the circumference of center C and radius r (which also touches the other two vertices). Pick the points P and Q on the circumference such that P is nearest to A, Q is nearest to B, and the secant line passing through P and Q intersects both the bisector of the angle between CB and CP (at point B') and the bisector of the angle between CA and CQ (at point A'). CAA' and CQA' are two congruent triangles, because 1) they share CA', i.e. the bisector 2) CA = CQ = r and 3) the angle between two congruent sides is the same by construction (it's the half the bisected angle). Likewise, CBB' is congruent to CPB'.

Awesome proof, great animations!!

How exactly does Conway get away with assuming the equilateral triangle in the first place? Am I right in thinking that he can show that if one assumes a central equilateral triangle, one can find a construction to construct any other triangle around it, hence any triangle has an equilateral centre?

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+The Analyser Hmm, the answer to your question is the video :)

@antoniojpan

Жыл бұрын

@@Mathologer I also think that probably a little step is missing. It should be proved, maybe, that when you trisect the three angles of an arbitrary triangle, the resulting angles a, b, c, d, e, f in the video are all greater than 60º. This way the construction can be performed and therefore the inner triangle is equilateral.

So, it’s like the ”anti-proof-by-contradiction”; in that you start it by assuming it’s true, just as you would with a proof-by-contradiction; but, instead of leading to a contradiction, it leads to a forced positive result; a sort of tautology, if you will (even though, it’s not self-evident, at first glance; and it’s not dependent on the assumption; but rather, the construction, itself, guarantees it). 🙂

Love your vids, im a mathmatical dummie, question is. Do you think that they used this method to lay out the greate pyrimids in Egypt?

Lorenzo Mascheroni était un mathématicien de Napoléon aussi après ont été cités Morley , Thebault ou Conway . Pour les triangles extérieurs équilatéraux , l’aire du triangle initial est égale à une différence entre le triangle équilatéral formé par les centres des triangles extérieurs et celui formé par les centres des équilatéraux intérieurs . 1750 1800 .

Thanks for setting me straiight!

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+George O'Rourke All under control then :)

Very nice video. I do have a question though, which kinda of seems intuitively obvious, but if this is extended to 3 dimensions, would we have an equilateral pyramid inside?

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+Brian Janus Good idea, but sadly that does not work :)

@BrianPaul1984

8 жыл бұрын

+Mathologer " Yeah, probably not "obvious", but it does beg the question: If one did attempt to trisect the interior angles of a simple 4 sided pyramid (say a tetrahedron) , I wonder what kind of shape would emerge from connecting lines where the trisection points meet in space? Any thoughts?

Every time I try to recreate this proof with pencil and paper and then measure all the angles in the triangle, I don't get a 60-60-60 equilateral triangle? As an example, I used a 30-60-90 special right triangle on graphing paper. I labeled the points A, B, and C then connected them. I then very carefully used a protractor to trisect the angles. I placed points D, E, and F where each of the lines from the angles intersected (as per shown in the video) and then formed a smaller triangle using the three points. I then used the protractor to measure the angles of the smaller triangle, and they were *not* all 60° (π/3).

I will never look at Pizza and Cheese Triangles in the same way again after watching these videos :-)

Since Morely's Miracle starts off with numbers (which require a protractor not just the Geometer's numberless straight edge and compass) and ends up with a perfect equilateral triangle; doesn't that imply that working backwords one could trisect the angle without numbers by means of a construction?.

@zozzy4630

8 жыл бұрын

Technically yes, but only if you place your equilateral triangle in exactly the right position.

muy entretenido e instructivo! felicitaciones y gracias! saludos desde el Perú

@Mathologer

7 жыл бұрын

:)

I get very suspicious when I hear the word "trisect."

Yeah, Conway was great... R.I.P

Do a vid on Conways game of life!

at 5:05 i noticed that every surrounding triangle has a red slice, a blue slice and a green slice.

Which software do you use to make the animations?

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

I use a mix of Apple Keynote, Adobe Premier, Illustrator and Photoshop and in quite a few of the other videos Mathematica and specialised pieces of software like Rubik's cube simulators :)

@ElboxD

8 жыл бұрын

Mathologer Thanks!

Sir,what will be the area of Morely's equilateral triangle,if original triangle having sides a,b,c.

But I was left with one uncertainty. When you insert the heavily drawn segment "a different way to make an isoceles triangle" minute 8:02 is it obvious that you can do this? I could imagine the segment too short i.e. The first segment was perpendicular to the edge. I am sure that it still works out but I need to think about it.

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+George O'Rourke Good point. We know that two angles opposite the red one are both greater than 60 degrees. This means that we are always faced with the situation depicted in this diagram www.qedcat.com/misc/ill1.jpg Maybe ponder it for a while to convince yourself you always get the highlighted point of intersection and that therefore the "heavily drawn segment" really always exists. Hope this helps :)

This is the first time I would know that I can be very liberal around geometry..I used to think it was fixed..

LOOMY NARTY CONFIRMED!!!But fantastic video and gorgeous proof. Hats off to Conway!

You forgot to put QED at the end of the proof. UNCONFIRMED!!!

@jandroid33

8 жыл бұрын

+Magic Gonads That's brilliant, never thought of that!Illuminati Unconfirmed!

@zozzy4630

8 жыл бұрын

There is a radio station called WQED. A w has three angles, and they are equal. In an equilateral triangle, the angles measure 60 degrees each. 60, 60, and 60 has three 6's, 666. Since the w = 666 and 666 = illuminati, w must equal illuminati. Since w = illuminati and QED = confirmed, we can substitute them in the original to get illuminati confirmed.

If I start watching the video from point 6:37, I do not see justification why the extension of right-hand side line -- together with mysteriously appearing second line -- at 6:48 would necessarily produce blue angle. Either something is missing or I am missing something. If the mysteriously appearing line comes from our original construction 5:38, then we can deduce the angle of 6:53 to be green, but would it then also automatically prove the mysterious angle to be blue?

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+woowooNeedsFaith That there is a point along the line that I extend at which the angle we get at the end is a blue angle follows by continuity. Pulled "all the way" to infinity the angle would be 0 and at the point we start the angle can be seen to be greater than the blue angle. This means that since the angle changes continuously as we extend the line, somewhere in between these two extremes you get exactly the blue angle. Hope this helps :)

@woowooNeedsFaith

8 жыл бұрын

Mathologer Ok, yes it definitely helped. :) Different kind of animation would have made it more apparent... If the left-side line would have been connected all the time to the end of extending line, varying angle would have been visible. But the animation would have been harder.

I think this proof was very elegant, but it was also somewhat sloppy. You need to make sure that the implication goes both ways before you can prove something backwards (aka make sure you specify that the central triangle will result in a trisected surrounding triangle IF AND ONLY IF the central triangle is equilateral). This proof doesn't rule out the possibility of a triangle whose angles when trisected don't match the picture (and don't form an equilateral triangle). The proof was, however, very easily accessible. Keep up the awesome videos!

@Mathologer

6 жыл бұрын

"This proof doesn't rule out the possibility of a triangle whose angles when trisected don't match the picture (and don't form an equilateral triangle)" No, that's not true, the proof is fine as is :) Any triangle is determined up to scaling by its three angles, right? Now, starting with ANY three angles that add to 180 degrees what Conway shows is that those 7 little triangles (which are completely pinned down in shape and size by these three angles and the size of the little equilateral triangle as indicated in this diagram kzread.info/dash/bejne/mZ6cz8psqbrPhKw.htmlm3s) fit together seamlessly into a triangle featuring those three angles that we started with as interior angles. Again, what's important here is that the little triangles exist and can be constructed on their own without making any reference to the triangle that results in the end. Now since we started with ANY three angles that add to 180 degrees we get ALL possible triangles this way and therefore Morley works for all triangles.

@alexmallen5765

6 жыл бұрын

Mathologer Now that you explain it this way the implication is a bit clearer. Because there is a one to one correspondence between the original 3 angles chosen and the final diagram achieved, the implication goes forwards as well as backwards. I guess it's a little obvious but I didn't realize it when watching the video. Thank you!

@Mathologer

6 жыл бұрын

All under control then :)

One more question if i may!? Do you think these two triangles share incenter???

@Mathologer

7 жыл бұрын

That would be nice. Sadly, in general the two triangles don't share the incenter :(

How many different T-Shirts do you have with your logos?

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+yakonanspeedcuber I've got close to a hundred math t-shirts, aiming for one a day :)

I met John Conway in a maths summer school last summer. A very interesting character to be sure, he would always sit at the back of every lecture (except for the lectures that he was doing of course) and shout out things over the whole theatre at the top of his voice, such as "I don't think you explained this well enough!" or "does this have anything to do with -famous theorem- at all?". Although he was frankly a little annoying at times, it's amazing just how much he's been able to remain involved in the mathematics scene, discovering new things left and right despite his old age. Anyway, nice video :)

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+Xatnu Rowan Glad you like the video. I first met him about 20 years ago. Supersmart and very eccentric. What I like most about him is that he really makes an effort to be understandable and really has a lot of time for beginners and interested amateurs :)

@Mathologer, what happens if you build a triangle the other way round? I mean, if you draw your trisectors a bit longer you get three different points of intersection. What about *this* triangle?

@Mathologer

7 жыл бұрын

Did you watch Part 1? kzread.info/dash/bejne/dpqipLlveNm0p7A.html

@IlTrojo

7 жыл бұрын

Sure, and that was HILARIOUS. But I now realize I was completely unclear in my question. I was referring to triangle UVW in www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/Morley/morley.gif. Sorry for not making it clear right ahead.

@Mathologer

7 жыл бұрын

Have you had a look at this page www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/Morley/Morley.shtml There you'll find a bit of a discussion of how these additional points connect with the rest of the diagram :)

beautiful

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+Carlos Soto Glad you think so, for me above anything else mathematics is beautiful :)

Illuminati confirmed. Thank you.

@Mathologer

9 жыл бұрын

+Keith Newton Mission accomplished :)

There is another proof of this theorem by Alain Connes. It was published in "Pour la science" in no. 292, Fevrier 2001. Worth seeing, as it uses group theory tools.

@Mathologer

5 жыл бұрын

Here is a collection of different proofs of this theorem including the (very nice) one by Alain Connes :) . www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/Morley/

@mariuszpiontas8295

5 жыл бұрын

Great, thank you!

WELL, if you wanted to, you could fit infinite triangles in one triangle to make triangleception which works out because illuminati OP.

Thankyou

How do you know that this constructed triangle has the same size as the orginal one? It proves only that these triangles have the same angles.

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+Integer The two triangles having the same angles is all you need, because having the same angles means that the two triangles are similar. In turn this implies that you can then just rescale everything in our reconstruction to fit into the original triangle :)

@Integer0

8 жыл бұрын

+Mathologer My first thought was that you cannot rescale everything because then these internal triangles would be different. I forgot that the whole point was to prove that the inner triangle is equilateral. Thank you for your answer. Great channel, just subscribed :).

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

Great, all under control then and thanks for subscribing :)

Hmm. I do have a small problem with that proof. Maybe you can enlighten me. At 08:36 you say, that the sides of both triangles are the same. But: the point is, the side length of one of the triangle (the outer one) was derived from a different side of the middle triangle. So in may opinion you started with the assumption that the triangle to be proofed to be equilateral is at least isosceles and you used that assumption to show that at 08:36 the 2 triangles are indeed congruent. From this congruency you conclude, that the triangle you started with is isosceles and since this holds for the triangle as a whole it must be equilateral. But: Isn't this some sort of circular reasoning? You started with an assumption and then used that assumption in the proof to show that the assumption is true. I am clearly missing something here. But what is it?

@kallewirsch2263

7 жыл бұрын

Hmm. I think I am getting closer. The point at this stage of the proof is not to show, that the inner triangle is euilateral, but to show, that the triangle constructed at 08:36 with the given angles in some way "fits" if and only if the sides of the inner triangle are isoscale. It must fit, if the whole construction gives us the original triangle back. Am I getting closer?

EXCELLENT . . . . 😎

great!

Conway really needs to see this. I'll go bug numberphile...

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+AFarma Ant Well, I hope to see Conway in about six weeks time. Will be interesting to find out whether he's seen any of my animations of his wonderful proofs that I've been covering in these videos :)

@gagaoolala9167

8 жыл бұрын

That sounds wonderful - do keep us updated on that!

I think I see something, what if you take away the center triangle and the 3 acute triangles then put the rest together? Picture at

@michelerny4820

7 жыл бұрын

5:00

@michelerny4820

7 жыл бұрын

Don't use sarcasm, I am just curious without paper

is there a link to the first video?

@Rararawr

9 жыл бұрын

+Matt Corker he posted it on this channel like 10 minutes before this video

@MedicFilms

9 жыл бұрын

Click on the channel page, and the first video is pretty easy to find from there, it just recently got uploaded. It's hilarious lol

@zozzy4630

8 жыл бұрын

It's also in the description on this video.

How does one trisect the angles?

@official-obama

Жыл бұрын

divide the angle by 3, and then put that angle in 3 times

Triangles =3 I love triangles!!

Great, now IM craving Pizza. I really need a new job....

I know you addressed this partially, but this proof seems backwards. It's like I'm saying "Given a, prove b" and you're turning around and saying "Given b, here's why a is true". That seems like a fallacy though. I dunno, maybe I'm not thinking it through enough. In particular, I'm not satisfied that you've proven congruence at 8:32. You're relying on the assumption that the triangle you're trying to prove is equilateral, *is* equilateral.

Do vivianis theorem next

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+Ian Flanagan Have a look at this www.qedcat.com/articles/viviani.pdf :)

@ianflanagan8744

8 жыл бұрын

+Mathologer Wow! thank you that was a very cool pdf, i had never heard of the surffer problem before, but it was very interesting! The proof of vivianis is so elagent! its proof kind of reminded me of a tangram puzzle, as well as one the pythagorean theorems proofs, in witch triangles are moved around in order to form squares. Do you know if vivianis theorem has a polhedra version? for example may it apply to tetrahedra or icosahedron, because both of these are made of equilateral triangles, i dont think it would work but you never know, in linear algebra i seen many theorem genralized to higher demensions.

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

Have a look at this paper: arxiv.org/abs/0903.0753

@ianflanagan8744

8 жыл бұрын

They say similar results can be deduced for polyhedra but do not state wich polyhedra. I actuly tried to do a similar proof method for a tetrahedron and found that you could take four smaller tetrahedron and rearange them to become the hight of the tetrahedron. so for a tetrahedron with all four faces being equalateral triangles, the sum of the distances to the faces is constant.

0:44 🎶This is not the greatest proof in the world; it is only a tribute!🎶

b+c+green=360° haha.. made me chuckle

@-_Nuke_-

8 жыл бұрын

Mathematics! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

-2sin666° = golden ratio. Illuminati confirmed

Will this work on a euclidean plane as well?

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

This will only work on the Euclidean plane :) Did you perhaps mean hyperbolic plane?

@CascadianBraeden

8 жыл бұрын

Blahhhh- Yeah that is what I meant to say.

@andrewkane2

8 жыл бұрын

The sum of the angles of a hyperbolic triangle is less than 180 so that's why this isn't true for non-euclidean geometry.

@CascadianBraeden

8 жыл бұрын

But how about a non-euclidian plane with consistent curvature in the same direction (like a sphere)? if the plane is curved the same amount in all directions shouldn't it affect all geometry the same way and thus allow triangles to abide by these principles despite having a sum of angles greater than 180 degrees?

@andrewkane2

8 жыл бұрын

In general any non-euclidean geometry doesn't consider Euclid's parallel postulate. Because of this the angle sum of every triangle is not always equal to 180 degrees (it could be less than or greater than depending on what type of geometry you're working with). Thus, the usual conditions for congruency, similarity, etc. of triangles do not always transfer to non-euclidean geometry. If we consider spherical geometry in particular, the angle sum of a triangle is between 180 and 540 degrees. Hence, equilateral triangles aren't restricted to having three 60 degree angles. Moreover, since not all triangles have the same angle sum this approach in attempting to prove an analogue to Morley's Miracle in spherical geometry will not work. The argument for why it doesn't work is similar to why this isn't true for hyperbolic triangles as well. Hope this helps.

Have you ever thought that Pi is 3.14...etc... only because we have 10 fingers?

@proto9053

8 жыл бұрын

even if we didn't have 10 fingers pi would always be the same, it would only look different if we chose a different base

@-_Nuke_-

8 жыл бұрын

Proto ;) exactly! We use base 10 because we have 10 fingers. If we had like 12 we would be using base 12, Pi would of course still be irrational and transcendental, but it wouldn't be 3,14... :P

@keshavmurali98

7 жыл бұрын

Base 20? So, what are the numbers for 10-19? Obviously, they can't be 10, for instance because 19 in base 20 would be 29 in base 10. You need separate digits for each of those numbers, which is why Hexa (base 16) represents 10-15 by A-F You have no idea what you're talking about.

@keshavmurali98

7 жыл бұрын

Americans used the base 20 system for calculation? Score was merely a way to measure time, *facepalms* There is NO way you can use a base 20 system without having digits for 0-19.

I think you shall make website...

RIP Conway

LEAVE SOME FOR THE SQUARES

You probably should have said a word or two on uniqueness. But I suppose it's fairly obvious anyway

@jasoncall3731

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah. Given an equilateral triangle and a coplanar point outside of it, there exists one and only one triangle with a vertex at the given point whose trisectors intersect at the vertices of the given equilateral triangle. Also, the given point would correspond uniquely, by projection, to one point inside the triangle, just for the fun of smaller packaging. This is a fundamental way to describe some unique triangle in the way we describe some conic section. Beauty.

Very pretty!

1:29- 360= 6 × 60 there are three 6s, 666, not to mention that 1+2=3 and 9 / 3 is 3 so three 3s, multiply by 2, again 666.

@krowenki5333

8 жыл бұрын

5:07 you know there are 6 triangles around the center triangle, there are 18 little triangles (the red green and blue), add the numbers together they form 9 now reverse it vertically it becomes 6, now the number is 66, 5:07, add the 2 nonzero numbers and it is 12, divide by 2 it has 2 6s, divide one of them by 2 and it is 3, a TRIangle has three sides, hence tri-angle and the remaining 6 join the other 6s it becomes 666, so there is a triangele with an eye with the number 666 (reference to part 1)

@krowenki5333

8 жыл бұрын

+Zachary Silanga this reply to myslef has 5 of the 666 when you group all the 6s into 3.

@krowenki5333

8 жыл бұрын

+Zachary Silanga and i meant the comment above the reply i made before this.

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+Zachary Silanga Well, I'd say your are the master of this game :)

Geometric proof is subtle to algebraic proof.Drawing figures, dissecting and rotating will not give proof sense.

The 'Mark of the Beast' is thought to be a mis-translation by modern bible scholars - It should be 616...! Damn! a new T-shirt = 308!!

@JorgetePanete

7 жыл бұрын

knowing where the "proofs" of bibles come from... It doesn't matter because of maths

Hey, your in Melbourne I’m in Melbourne. I’m not a hardcore mathematician but I would like to be. Maybe we can get together and you can teach me how to be an even bigger math tragic than I am. I have a similar haircut to you. See we already have some common ground.

I don't think miraculous is the right word. It's more like inevitable

I like this,is it proven yet?

@Mathologer

7 жыл бұрын

What I present in this video is an outline of a proof and so the answer to your question is "Yes" :)

@markorakic1

7 жыл бұрын

Ty for your answer,i just got confused by "assuming that conjecture is as nice as possible" ,but now it's clear,ty

its wonderfull

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+nazir aloush Isn't it :)

There was legit 3333 views when I watched this

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+Ari Friedman Damn missed that one. I'll try to be there if this one ever gets a 6666 :)

OMG 9:56 YOU CAN SEE A TINY BIT OF WHAT HE DOES AFTER THE VIDEO!!!!!! THE MEN IN BLACK ARE THERE

This proves that Conway was illuminati.

Infinite illuminatis, you can't escape from them external and internal :)

Man... It's the first time I can't get your explanations... Algebra was invented for a reason... Use letters, equations, not "if there is red and blue then 2 yellow + green".

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

I am sure that if you have problems with 2 yellow + green, then 2y+g will only make it worse for you :)

@heruilin

7 жыл бұрын

I had a similar issue recognizing that 2 yellow slice + green slice was equal to the remaining angle for the red and blue triangle and is where the genius of Conway shines. Perhaps is could be clearer by 1) first positioning the green slice so that its to the far left or right instead of the middle and then 2) slowly rotate it to the middle.

the only way he could know all of this is if HE was in the illuminati!! CONFIRMED

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

:)

@a006delta

8 жыл бұрын

*Get's Inception music*

360 = 6 x 60.... Does anyone see any Illuminati pattern here? Hmmm....

@Mathologer

9 жыл бұрын

+bpdav1 Yes, definitely not a coincidence :)

3√74 Root of all evil

I've really got to recommend the music video [Yankovic, Alfred M, "Foil"] « kzread.info/dash/bejne/p6abzslsh8zTeKQ.html »

Is science full of fake ? Plz answer me

That was great! Wonderful presentation, my wife (not a big math fan) followed most of it memeblender.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/grumpy-cat-i-love-math.jpg

@Mathologer

8 жыл бұрын

+Todd Cottle Glad both of you got something out of this way of presenting this wonderful proof :)

66,666 views

buruk sekali matematikamu

nice proof reverse engineering proof.

melanger les maths et les illuminatis, quelle honte, vous êtes pas mathématicien, arrêtez de mentir aux gens