Comments by "Lawrence D’Oliveiro" (@lawrencedoliveiro9104) on "3Blue1Brown" channel.

  1. 18:01 RIP John Conway, sadly a victim of COVID-19.
    456
  2. Stories have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Reality doesn’t.
    407
  3.  @maxlife459  It’s not clear that the universe has a beginning or an end.
    145
  4. 2:33 Hmm, a couple of centuries ago that question might have elicited a “Huh?” response ... back when people thought electricity was some kind of fluid anyway.
    11
  5. But the secret that nobody has noticed is that “sudoku” sounds like “u-code-us” backwards ... muahaha!!!
    10
  6. You just brought together a number of random facts I had picked up here and there about Φ and suddenly made a whole lot more sense of them.
    6
  7. A lot of the terminology comes from the researchers who pioneered the subject in the first place. Where these were German speakers, you get German terms like “eigenvector” or “entscheidungsproblem”.
    5
  8. 6:35 Specifically, linear momentum is a dual to symmetry of the physical laws in position in space. Angular momentum has a different dual: symmetry of physics in orientation in space.
    5
  9. 11:07 You label it “Not Line”, but what you really mean is “Not Straight”.
    4
  10.  @ekki1993  “descriptions of reality are not reality” ... isn’t that just your description of reality?
    3
  11. Probably the most interesting guy ever to be named Claude. ;)
    2
  12. How is that supposed to rhyme, though?
    2
  13.  @ekki1993  Are numbers only one fiction? Or are they more than one? In other words, which “fictitious” number describes the reality of what you claim?
    2
  14.  @ekki1993  “Literal wooden chair” is just another concept, though.
    2
  15.  @ekki1993  But that’s just your concept.
    2
  16.  @ekki1993  “Obtuseness” is just an other concept, though.
    2
  17.  @ekki1993  It means the concepts in your discussion are just fiction.
    2
  18.  @ekki1993  You were the one trying to claim numbers were fictitious; you tell me.
    2
  19.  @ekki1993  “If you go too far into their definitions you'll find nonsense, not because the universe is intrinsically nonsensical (it may be, but for other reasons), but because your initial axioms made that nonsensical behaviour appear.” Does that apply to the axioms of your argument as well?
    2
  20.  @skyjack1  Reductio ad absurdum -- if the assumption someone is making leads to a contradiction, that must mean the assumption is wrong.
    2
  21.  @nadarith1044  So if you cannot find something in reality that intrinsically represents the reality of reality, then does that mean reality is not real?
    2
  22. 5:55 Do Americans have trouble distinguishing between a “parity check” and a “parody check”? Otherwise you couldn’t be sure if someone was making fun of you ... even if it was done in an odd way ... or, oddly, if it was being done evenly ...
    2
  23. 17:35 Is there a connection with Nöther’s Theorem here as well? The symmetry of the laws of physics with respect to position in space has a mathematical dual in the law of conservation of momentum, while their symmetry with respect to time has conservation of energy as its dual. And doesn’t energy correlate to frequency?
    2
  24. 1:57 Dm7!
    2
  25. This is the well-known base-rate effect. As a computing sysadmin, I see it most often in people’s preconceptions about the (un)reliability of hard disks. Hard disks (at least, all the ones made this century, as far as I’m aware) have this inbuilt self-monitoring system called “SMART”. One of the things it’s supposed to do is predict the probability that the drive is going to fail. I don’t bother with it, because of the base-rate effect.
    2
  26. 11:45 But not every point on the circle. Because the number of rational points on the circle is countably infinite, but the total number of points is *un*countably infinite. Heh-heh...
    1
  27. 6:19 But that already applies to the trivial solution, doesn’t it? Since the open interval doesn’t include its endpoints, its length must be strictly less than the distance between those endpoints. Therefore the open interval (0, 1) has a length infinitesimally, yet strictly, less than 1. QED. So what the rest of your construction is doing is proving that the length can be even less than that.
    1
  28. The applications are not just in audio, but in image processing as well. Only here the Fourier is applied in two dimensions. Then you can have volume data (“voxels”), in three dimensions. Or why not add time (animation) to the mix, for a total of four dimensions? All the same basic theory still works.
    1
  29. 12:04 Maths needs more picture symbols! It already suffers massively from too many meanings of alphabetical symbols from a small number of alphabets. OK, so there is the question of how you pronounce the new things...
    1
  30. 9:35 They are now, but did Maxwell derive them that way?
    1
  31.  @ekki1993  A concept less real than the numbers which you said were “fiction”?
    1
  32.  @ekki1993  Are you conceding that point, then? Because the second paragraph depends on it.
    1
  33.  @ekki1993  There is a number of such concepts, though. Is that number a fiction, or not?
    1
  34.  @nadarith1044  Go look up reductio ad absurdum , and maybe you will understand the point I was making.
    1
  35.  @nadarith1044  But you were the one who introduced that phrase, not me. Therefore it is your argument that is at fault, not mine.
    1
  36.  @nadarith1044  Like I said, you were the one trying to make that argument, not me. So any deficiency in it is a deficiency in your argument, not mine.
    1
  37.  @nadarith1044  You were trying to make an argument about the unreality of numbers. I merely pointed out how vacuous that was, by showing that your argument could be used to prove the unreality of your argument itself.
    1
  38.  @nadarith1044  No “other guy” brought in the term “intrinsically represents”, it was you. And it was you who then said the term was an “oxymoron”. But since it was part of your challenge to me, it therefore follows that your challenge falls flat on its face. QED.
    1
  39. Eeeeuuhhhh ... ... but then again, crabs do that. Also, I just recently noticed there were 3 blue ones and 1 brown one.
    1
  40. 0:17 Not just notes, but also rhythms. Yes.
    1
  41. Perhaps because the god books are full of nonsense like π = 3.
    1
  42. And also don’t forget that ideal samples should be just dimensionless points. The fact that real image sensors have to average the incoming light intensity over a nonzero area leads to a loss of contrast in the fine detail, as you get closer to the Nyquist limit. This is why you have a filter in image-manipulation programs that compensates for this effect. It’s called “Unsharp Mask” ... you may have heard of it.
    1
  43. 5:47 Will I scare anybody by mentioning at this point that this is the basis of calculations of physical quantities in quantum theory, too?
    1
  44. 24:53 In 4D, an axis of rotation is actually a plane. Each of the mutually-perpendicular circles lies in the plane of the axis of rotation of the other.
    1
  45. All those gaps -- the composite numbers between the bright dots that are the primes ... those are the Dark Side.
    1
  46. Yes, “probability of 0” does mean “impossible”. Because consider what happens when you try to determine which probability-0 point you have hit: you cannot actually do so in a finite time. All you can do is narrow it down to an interval with a nonzero total probability, which gets smaller and smaller the more time and effort you spend computing it (convergence). So the exact probability-0 event that was hit requires an infinite amount of time and effort to narrow down. Which means you can’t do it.
    1
  47. If DNA had a more robust copying system, evolution wouldn’t happen.
    1
  48. Next: how to explain to all those computer graphics noddies that “pixels are not little squares” ...
    1
  49. 7:30 Because “degenerate” is such an ugly word ... ;)
    1
  50. 5:42 Probability theory seems to have a lot of these. E.g. the “Monty Hall problem”.
    1