Comments by "Ungoogleable o_O" (@oO_ox_O) on "Numberphile2" channel.

  1. Brady is your research center just open for post-doctorals?
    72
  2. > this means that: if the opponent is sufficiently naive or sufficiently smart as a player, the closer the purely random strategy gets to being optimal. And once again we see that the two extremes meet at some point.
    12
  3. Petra Marbun True for a randomly selected player out of the population, wrong for player playing truly random (which is incredibly hard without any tools I heard).
    6
  4. Maybe that there are open problems concerning cubic numbers (that don't exist in the same manner with smaller powers).
    2
  5. I asked myself the same. Also what if you have friends and you want to select good ones for them as well?
    2
  6. > He believed that a scheme of 'marks' for family merit should be defined, and early marriage between families of high rank be encouraged by provision of monetary incentives. […] He advocated encouraging eugenic marriages by supplying able couples with incentives to have children. At least on Wikipedia it says nothing about sterilization or the like.
    1
  7. And was he just father of a word? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_stirpiculture
    1
  8. Very nicely explained!
    1
  9. Heh, integration and logarithms, I take back what I said about it always being on middle-school level. :)
    1
  10. I thought CGP Grey called at first.
    1
  11. dekippiesip > you will never be able to act randomly yourself even if you want it Is there really no trick to at least attempt it? Maybe running some chaotic calculations (simulating a simple PRNR) on the head feeding it always the previous result?
    1
  12. gumbilicious1 In this case it means non-determinism (to someone just seeing the outputs and not knowing about possible secret initialization values, e.g. the so-called 'seed') and normally you also want a somewhat uniform distribution. > even perfectly random events can produce recognizable patterns It's just very unlikely and it shouldn't be expected.
    1
  13. Eric H Sufficient non-determinism does exist though.
    1
  14. Being nit-pickish, when she says "approximately" she shouldn't use the equals signs.
    1
  15. Ah yes now I remember that guy.
    1
  16. What do you mean with proof? There was no rigorous proof here concerning e.g. that approximation,
    1