Enter the world of the Mathologer for really accessible explanations of hard and beautiful math(s).
In real life the Mathologer is a math(s) professor at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and goes by the name of Burkard Polster.
These days Marty Ross another math(s) professor, great friend and collaborator for over 20 years also plays a huge role behind the scenes, honing the math(s) and the video scripts with Burkard. And there are Tristan Tillij and Eddie Price who complete the Mathologer team, tirelessly proofreading and critiquing the scripts and providing lots of original ideas. If you like Mathologer, also check out years worth of free original maths resources on Burkard and Marty's site www.qedcat.com.
Пікірлер
It is all about Form and Volume, different forms same volume, or doubble volume, in same form.
Your starter-psychosis, is a starter-psychosis, there is No need of 'ok' and starter everything, it is animal instinct sounds, just a phychosis. (Not Mathematic) the Heart of Mathematic is Perspective + Logic and Order = Mathematic. Time is the 'shadow' of Motion.
best combo in the era of gaming??? ?
Turn a clay-cube, into a ball.
I like the coloring proof by far, the swivel proof didn't feel like it even proves anything, but a very interesting fact.
Մոռանում ես,որ' ՀԱՅ էր,Հային ՀԱՅՈՒԹՅՈՒՆ չես սովորեցնի,ՆԱ' ՍՈՎՈՐՎԱԾ է ԾՆՎՈՒՄ😂❤+**12
"you did not steal from me. You stole me from mankind" - Tesla
I feel like calculus is hard but when you know them its like doing 1+1
It's only half the story, if you want to see the rest, try this: e^(iTau)=1
The only thing I don't understand is way you use 10 M instead of any other number. Could someone explain the reason for this?
Using times 10 is the best way to provide the cancelation of the infinite decimal through a circular algorithm; Times 10 Subtract 1 Divide by 9 Notice it doesn't work if; Times 10 Add 1 Divide by 11.
@@johnlabonte-ch5ul KarenTheBonehead, what is this circular algorithm that you keep on blathering about? I'll translate your word based procedures into normal arithmetic: Times 10: 10 * 0.999... = 9.999... Subtract 1: 9.999... - 1 = 8.999... Divide by 9: 8.999... / 9 = 0.999... "Notice it doesn't work if;" ??? (see below). Times 10: 10 * 0.999... = 9.999... Add 1: 9.999... + 1 = 10.999... Divide by 11: 10.999... / 11 = 0.999... What doesn't work? As usual, you just mutter some junk and don't explain or illustrate what you mean. I have no idea what you were trying to prove with either of your weird procedures. None of it in any way invalidates Mathologer's proof or that 0.999... = 1. There is something seriously wrong with your cognition. You need to get an MRI scan done.
@@johnlabonte-ch5ul Karen, I forgot to say that there is nothing special about using 10, other than it makes the arithmetic simpler (as it is equivalent to shifting the decimal place one place to the right). Let's try 7 instead of 10, and also go back to a sensible procedure: 7 * 0.999... = 6.999... => 6 * 0.999... + 0.999... = 6 + 0.999... => 6 * 0.999... = 6 => 0.999... = 6/6 = 1 You have been told that sort of thing several times, by me. Because I know the sort of fallacious objection that you'll make, I'll prove that 7 * 0.999... = 6.999... 7 * 0.999... = 7 * (0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ...) = 7 * 0.9 + 7 + 0.09 + 7 + 0.009 + ... = 6.3 + 0.63 + 0.063 + ... = (6 + 0.3) + (0.6 + 0.03) + (0.06 + 0.003) + .... = 6 + (0.3 + 0.6) + (0.03 + 0.06) + (0.003 + 0.006) + ... = 6 + 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... = 6.999... In case I haven't said it recently, you are a muppet, and you need to get an MRI scan to find a possible explanation for that, your serious loss of memory and your lack of cognition and comprehension.
Why is it that the numerator in the continued fraction for 2 is never replaced with the identity 2 / (3 - 2)?
At 21:10, why is obvious that any 2 cycles have the same length? I know we can prove this with Lagrange's theorem for groups but is there an easier explanation that I am missing?
The basic question is 0<nx where n is a real number and x is (Lim of ".99..."=1) minus ".99..." Stated differently is the limit of ".99..." the same as ".99..." I say no. ".99..." is equivalent to 1 not exactly equal. 1/3 is equivalent to ".33..." not exactly equal. 0<n((lim ".33...=1/3) minus ".33...") and 1 divided by 3 is not complete.
Any infinitely repeating decimal is incomplete and imprecise.
@@johnlabonte-ch5ul For the zillionth time, what does ' Lim of ".99..." ' mean? Specifically, what is x and y for lim x->y 0.999... and how does either x or y have anything to do with 0.999...? I'm still WAAAAAAIIIIITINGTINGTING... Duh! If 0.999... doesn't equal 1 exactly, then it cannot be equivalent to 1. You just keep on repeating the same nonsensical gibberish over and over again, only have it shot down over and over again. You then run away for a few days, then repeat the cycle by starting a new thread. You have a serious problem. You really need to get an MRI scan.
@@johnlabonte-ch5ul You: "Any infinitely repeating decimal is incomplete and imprecise." Where's your proof? The fact is that all decimals are complete and precise. If you claim that 0.999... is only approximately 1, then what is 1 - 0.999... and give a proof?
Infinity is incomplete, inconsistent and imprecise.
@@johnlabonte-ch5ul You claims are incomplete, inconsistent and imprecise nonsense. Explain and prove what you mean.
I want to know what it would look like if you took this 2 dimensional diagram and formula and created the 3D equivalent !!! What would that look like? We want to know !!!
I think I’m going to teach myself calculus
Your shirt is too distracting 😂😂😂
I'm getting a little lost on the whole reordering business (how do we re-order the CupDdown permutation to the shift permutation?). I get (or trust really) that you're allowed to reorder it, but i'm not seeing exactly HOW you're reordering it. Will need to watch again closely!
Flipping the egde while srcambling part of the cube was pretty easy... Hint: Use M and U moves
Compare turning something inside out versus reflecting it across it's surface.
"Don't worry if you don't get every detail in the FIRST viewing" -- do you really think I'm going to watch this 10 times? Well, you're exactly right.
All multiples of 3 add up to 3, 6, or 9 - its not unique to JUST 9
Please help. I don't understand why to cube uv then multiply u^3+v^3 by v^3. Looks like the equation will become unbalance
I guess the coupon is worth $10 x (18/37)
It flips front and behind. The reason why we think it flips left and right is that we are so used to turning to see behind our backs instead of doing a backflip or something. In fact you have probably understood what I meant by turning to see behind without me ever mentioning that it was with respect to the z axis. It might have been the x axis but it’s so unusual that we don’t think about it.
Bro u are on the voices english book a2 level in topic 10c page 2 listening take a look
I am wondering if our conclusion about particular number "properties" comes from arbitrary choice of Numeral System base? "9" has significance only if we use 10-base system. I guess it would be "F" in hex-base, "7" for octal-base. For binary system all will jam to "1".
Brilliant
HEW! INF/INF!!!! 😂❤❤😂❤😂❤😂😂❤
So question, why didn't you push the point on the circle all the way to its perimeter, so that the star would become sharp, like in the animation? Would that spoil the star somehow?
It’s easy if you just do the easy stuff. More KZread maths, don’t listen to these idiots.
Does this mean that… pi + e …xor… pi TIMES e …has to be rational ?
I think the illustration of an Eagle 🦅 , used by insurance companies, financial businesses, and gun manufacturers, was based upon Hermite’s hair.
Not a big commenter on videos, but I have to say: What an elegant and brilliant visual representation of Eulers formula.
It's interesting, I once took "medicine" with a Native American shaman. I was able to "see" the energy connecting everything, i.e. what one normally sees as empty space between everything. When I tried to describe the structure of the energy, I said it was a combination of bubble wrap and a bee's honey comb, for lack of better description. And I said the magical number is 3. We'll, that vortex in the thumbnail is what I saw, but 3D and barely visible. However, I still think I was just hallucinating and didn't see any objective material. I doubt anyone will read this...😅 but in case you do, Peace and Blessings.
9 is the number for consciousness 😊
There's a guy on KZread that thinks continued fractions like this explain all of physics, Gavin Wince. The numerology is strong with that one.
I hate numerology so much. Learn another number base, any other number base, and whatever neat little coincidence you've got disappears.
Why didn't you use simpler examples? You started out with a great video then your examples are way too complicated.
You made a great video but your first example is Way too Complicated.
What do you think about Terrence Howard´s theories?
My son came up with the algebraic proof (second one in this video) by himself after around a day of staring at his piece of paper
Your research makes complete sense. This proves that black holes aren't sucking light out, they're projecting darkness inward by bending around the outside of our space and then getting pulled around and then sucked inside our space from a light vacuum. The "event horizon" is the light in which we see pulling this dark matter into our space. Make sense?
Brilliant and fun video
Proof by contradiction: 1. assume false statement 2. handwave 3. contradiction QED lol.
The youtube doors are locked? I want to leave! Let me out!!!!!
I’m not sure about the “magic” and the “400 years” but I’m 81, grew up with a slide rule, and still think they are wonderful. As you partly mentioned, logs 1614 by Napier, Log Scale 1620 by Gunter, “sliding scales” in 1622 by Oughtred, and circular sliding scales in 1622(or 1632?) by Oughtred. So, in 20-30 years, we had most of the magic. By the 1960’s we had straight 10” slide rules with 32 scales for, almost, everything (Pickett N3). Unfortunately, we had to wait 400 years for the animated Power Point presentation that makes it jump out at you.
2:24 Just in case KZread deletes my comment with a link on it, I found A solution to the Red Cross puzzle in Desmos. I put a link to the graph on my channel about page. Still not sure if it's THE unique solution (I was ready to like, categorize every possible cut you could take haha). Another day perhaps!!
that diagram is a graphical representation of analogue sound
3:00 heard it from a lot of people a bit randomly then learned it from a corollary of Gauss's lemma. come on we already had minimal polynomials 5 years ago on this channel... that's a small step away from some field theory
I'm amazed that such an educational and well-elaborated video got only 15K thumbs-up in almost eight years. That makes less than 2K thumbs-up per year.