Hearted Youtube comments on Mathologer (@Mathologer) channel.

  1. Great video! A few years back I wrote my bachelor's thesis about homomorphic encryption. I would love to see how you explain how it works 🤠 I'm sure the different perspective will amaze me.
    6
  2. If instead of n-cubes, you look at n-tetrahedra, the number of vertices, edges, faces, etc. exactly match Pascal's triangle (with the last 1 in each row removed).
    6
  3. all the time i am trying to wrap my head around on the thing that is printed on your shirt
    6
  4. Not so discrete now that you blabbered it all over jnternets
    6
  5. Best content on The Tube (and elsewhere)!
    6
  6. You'll probably appreciate the recent Action Lab video "This material can un-crush itself" that shows a simple application of the Schwartz Lantern geometry
    6
  7. Made it to the end, and I love the visual proof. Of course it is clearly fair in that no one can argue that it is unfair, but that is not quite the end of the story. That's because it treats gains and losses as equal, and psychologically, people feel losses more intensely than gains. The estimate I read was that we feel loss twice as intensely as gain. It then begs the question: How we should modify the communicating vessels model if we want it to be psychologically fair instead of economically fair?
    6
  8.  @Filipnalepa  For n>3, there are different kinds of 'center of mass'. There is the vertex center of mass, the edge center of mass and the area center of mass. In this video, Mathologer refers to the VERTEX center of mass. Your intuition looks a the AREA center of mass.
    6
  9. Another gem 💎 of number theory! Only Mathologer could translate it into an accessible youtube video without compromising rigor! Gauss said of the proof, 'It tortured me'! Reading that I knew I wouldn't last one lemma before it, in my first encounter with it in Burton's Elementary Number Theory. Sure, the Preliminary Gauss's lemma and the main combinational argument of the proof was tough to understand, at the introductory level I first studied it an year ago😧. Now, most of that no longer dwells in my mind 😅 (forgotten! ), so imagine my ecstacy at this mathologer video😍! I'm sure it will help me comprehend it better than before, and I'll remember it longer (once I finish watching 😁)!
    6
  10. You can´t challenge me with visualisations. Am doing it all in my head! :face-purple-crying:
    6
  11. This reminds me of my high school Math teacher, he used to tell us " and this is the art of mathematics"
    6
  12. You're a pedagogical genius!
    6
  13. One minute into the video, and I was already surprised: I had never learned/noticed that the 3-4-5 triangle has inradius 1! The fact that the sum/product identity generalizes to any triangle with inradius 1 is amazing.
    6
  14. I remember being amazed at slide rules. We did only the "numbers" with it. The scale (decimal) was in our head only. I remember in a class we were proof checking the results given by the then "new calculator device" in order to see if it was calculating properly!! At the time everyone was amazed at the degree of precision of the calculator but we all knew the slide rule was faster!!! What really killed the SR was the TRIG tables... no more need to look up the tables with the calculator...
    6
  15. 19:44 Potential crossover with Michael Penn?
    6
  16. 20:48 Never realised, that he has an non-native-english accent, until I hear him speaking German. Grüße aus Leverkusen, der Heimat des Aspirin.
    6
  17. I am happy that video was not that big (I mean not as long as 40min) because it's not easy for me to find such time in which I can see your videos 😊😊
    6
  18. it is a coincidence
    6
  19. 10:41 “enhance!”
    6
  20. No words could explain the infinite joy I get while going on this journey with your way of telling this story. Thanks 🙏
    6
  21. I like way when you get pumped we too get pumped.... And that's what I think is showing true love to THE MATHEMATICS
    6
  22. @ that seems fortuitous for you. I have had many professors, both math and non-math professors, that have refused to acknowledge a mistake. In one instance, the mistake was on an exam…professor refused to acknowledge the mistake, so I wrote down the trivial counterexample, wrote down what the professor intended the problem to be, then solved the intended problem. I’m not insinuating that a majority won’t acknowledge a mistake, just that they exist and I conjecture that as one’s popularity rises, the willingness to acknowledge a mistake decreases.
    6
  23. 18:41 should be {5/2}, and that would be either 3 line segments ("2-gons?"), or 2 triangles.
    6
  24. When I was young this game was being sold under the name "Hi-Q" by one of the big game/toy companies (Hasbro? Ideal?). A quick search reveals several companies were in on it. This was long before haiku become a thing in North America, though Hi-Karate (after-shave, etc.) was being marketed.
    6
  25. Haha 28:09 you have Euler in yours patreons. That's something!
    6
  26. What if we have a Penrose tiling grid?
    6
  27. It's always exciting when these come out!
    6
  28. There very often is. That's why it's a clever place to hide sneaky things.
    6
  29. Ooh ooh I've been working on polylogarithm functions and Dirichlet series recently and what you have shown is very exciting to me.
    6
  30. I love seeing Magic Squares used in Sudoku variants. Thanks for sharing.
    6
  31. It begs the question about just how much amazing maths is out there but has just been lost to time. Amazing video thanks Mathologer!
    6
  32. As a straight C, occasional B, math student I’m in awe of this channel. I discovered this channel just yesterday and I’ve already devoured several hours worth of math I otherwise would not have cared about. Idk if you are a teacher or were a teacher at one point but your presentation, explanations and enthusiasm is something I wish I had when I was taking math.
    6
  33. The brilliance is that they all were "oral" recitations - imagine a full paper worth of mathematical notations in 4 lines of Sanskrit stanzas! YES - it "has" to be exact 4 lines of Sanskrit stanza - otherwise they will flout the Sanskrit grammar rules. So imagine the plight!!! It has to be the mathematical the full proof; needs to be Sanskrit grammatically correct- and YES -easy to learn and record in minds as well - no paper. Very small order indeed! This exact proof it like so - it is written like this in Madhava's mother tongue Malayalam script but in Sanskrit : വ്യാസേ വാരിധിനിഹതേ രൂപ ഹൃതെ വ്യാസ സാഗരാഭിഹതേ ത്രിശരാദി വിഷമസംഖ്യാഭക്തം ഋണം സ്വം പൃഥക് ക്രമാത് കുര്യാത് Those 4 lines - summarize the entire summation series like so : വ്യാസേ വാരിധി ->4 x Diameter ത്രിശരാദി -> 3, 5 etc വിഷമസംഖ്യാഭക്തം -> Div by odd nos ഋണം സ്വം -> plus & minus Which goes like this – Do the 4 times of the diameter of a circle and then …
    6
  34. Hey! I've seen your videos since last year, and I really enjoy it. I turned 16 couple days ago and I'm really used to studying for olympiads. In fact, I was one of the 4 people from Brazil to go to "Conesul", it's a south America olympiad, and I'm studying really hard to go IMO. You and 3b1b are the only foreign channels I know that make videos about the "real math", and I truly love watching your videos. And my request is, would you make a video solving the problem 6 from the 1988 IMO? It's a very famous problem and I'm sure you know the problem and the solution to it (me too btw), but I would love to see a video of yours solving this problem. Jokes aside, I would watch it every morning lol
    6
  35.  @leif1075  Yes, I have :)
    6
  36. I'm a simple man. I see mathologer upload hair, I click
    6
  37. honestly, I kinda wish this was broken up into several half hour videos for each topic, it seemed like it was so jam packed to fit all the segments into one hour long video that you could have gone more in depth and explicit if you had broken it up.
    6
  38. Why is 1 = 1 excluded? It looks like a base case of length 1. If you picture addition and multiplication as functions rather than infix operators, +(1) is just as valid as +(2, 2).
    6
  39. Mr. Burkard Polster, Mathematician, I really say from the bottom of my heart, you are a very valuable analyst in explaining the theorems of the mathematical world. Every time I watch your videos, a window opens to me deep into the infinite world of mathematics. Your 19 yrs fan :')
    6
  40. In the card trick, how is the direction of rotation communicated?
    6
  41. Monetizing videos is fine (I block ads anyway) but please don't put sponsored content inside your videos, like many other great Youtubers seem to do for the past three years. Any video with sponsored content won't get my upvote.
    6
  42. I love this! I am curious about two parts of the dream proof -- How do we know that the TSP criss cross shortening trick can be applied to exploded lacings (maybe the TSP graph interpretation only applies to real lacings)? And, when carrying out the shortening trick, how do we know there will always be a "0" in the right position to un-cross with? 🤔❤️
    6
  43. In Italy, heron's formula is taught in the middle school, when pupils are about 12 years old. Many among them will forget it forever, some of them see it again in high school.
    6
  44. Wow! I’m this early for a Mathologer video!
    6
  45. Every other triangular number
    6
  46. for the record, T. Bousch also has a strong contender in the "best title for a math paper, ever" category : Le Poisson n'a pas d'arête (Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincaré, 1999)
    6
  47. I didn't here a lot of the words you said, I was too busy trying to figure out which non-regular polychoron you generated by having both the squares and triangles overlayed on the points. It's a prism formed with triangular prisms on each end
    6
  48. Actually Herons method for approximating square roots is still taught here in Germany from time to time, depending on the teacher.
    6
  49. Do they even have Latin class in the country most viewers here come from?
    6
  50. Very interesting! This seems like a different method from what I know for odd sizes. Mine is algorithmic, and I have no clue how to prove that it is correct. It is the method of 5x5 square in the king's room.
    6