Comments by "xybersurfer" (@xybersurfer) on "Numberphile" channel.

  1. +Zedriodor that's a circular argument. i think it's more a matter of convenience
    5
  2.  @Qladstone  where does Richard W. Hamming say that?
    5
  3. +ultimateredstone yea i hate ambiguity too
    3
  4. oh. "Hit The Woah" seems to be a dance move. i was expecting something more interesting
    3
  5. Numberphile i'm not convinced about what was said in the video. it sounds like nonsense to be honest. your exchange with Gamebuster1990 makes it quite clear
    2
  6. 5 thousand 3 hundred and 53 hundred are technically both ambiguous: 5 thousand 3 hundred: 5300? 5000300? 53 hundred: 5300? 53100? but 53 hundred seems less ambiguous, because someone would be much more likely to say 53, 1 hundred if they meant 53100
    2
  7.  @rarelycomments  i think the expectation here is more that something more useful is presented. instead of something that is more of a game
    2
  8. actually when you are doing addition, you can choose which numbers you will add up first.
    1
  9. a polynomial of degree 71?! to me this signifies the weakness of mathematics in comparison to computing
    1
  10. what about draws?
    1
  11.  @HeroRaze  all mathematical statements are programming expressions though
    1
  12.  @HeroRaze  oh my bad. kudos for responding after such a long time
    1
  13. but now you bring mass and density into something that was just about volume. if you take those out then you are just restating the problem
    1
  14. interesting. but i don't see how top down paranthesis is preferred over bottom up. it seems like you could use the same numbers and just reverse their order, to avoid having to recalculate
    1
  15. it's a pretty visualization and interesting sequence
    1
  16. any chance you could do a video on intuitionism?
    1
  17. you say listable is a better word to describe countable because you can't count them all. but, you can't list them all either
    1
  18. car exactly
    1
  19. i have a marvelous proof which unfortunately would not fit in the comments...
    1
  20.  @jcolinmizia9161  you nailed it
    1
  21. that's correct. the one that looks like y is small letter Gamma. the one in the video is capital letter Gamma
    1
  22. shouldn't if have been rounded off to 3.1
    1
  23. they probably want a square, defined using whole numbers. similarly in for Pythagoras' theorem you can have a triangle with sides 3, 4, 5. pi not a whole number.
    1
  24. interesting. but, what do mathematicians mean with efficient?
    1
  25. so he thought it would work?
    1
  26.  @KX36  oh. i should have know. typical
    1
  27. kind of silly
    1
  28. i'm not buying it. the self referential statements don't even have a meaning and just because something hasn't been proven, doesn't mean that no proof can exist. i don't care how popular this idea is
    1
  29. MuffinsAPlenty from watching this channel's response to Gamebuster1990's comment: /watch?v=O4ndIDcDSGc&lc=z12tip0h1lepznkct22vennpdpubg1mcm.1515728276789049
    1