Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Numberphile" channel.

  1. Jeez - if that's her idea of an easy solution that a 5th grader should be able to work out, she went to a different school to me! I don't think we touched algebra till 8th or 9th grade and cancelling of elements till a year or two after that. It was elegant though, and she's very pleasant to listen to.
    305
  2. He sure does take a really great pleasure in numbers. It's nice to see someone so joyful about knowledge!
    9
  3. Thank you - for the most depressing interview ever. For a man who isn't worried, Mr Conway's eyes have the look of infinite disappointment - but maybe that's just sadness at his increasingly pressing mortality.
    7
  4. Given enough time, EVERY molecule would eventually get out by sheer random chance. Imagine if you were betting on a particular molecule and it randomly got all the way to the exit cell, before bouncing off a wall and working all the way back to the start position!
    6
  5. Nope, next silly question.
    4
  6. Can someone please explain to me why anyone would spend any time at all studying the monster group, much less dedicating their lives to it? What benefits does it have in the real world?
    3
  7. You could add an evolutionary "movement with purpose" parameter to this. On a grid with right angled cells, you can immediately simplify by limiting the movements to 45 degree increments, and by eliminating "back on yourself" as an option, you could speed up the solution by 12.5%. If rather than adding a wind modifier, you added a weak suction modifier, you could refine still further.
    3
  8. 64 times? Why not 65? Why not arrow 64? I don't really understand the point of arbitrarily large numbers - especially ones that can't be worked with. I don't even understand why fix with arrow notation - that in itself seems arbitrary and unworkable within almost no iterations.
    2
  9. I thought he explained the first two really well, but never illustrated their real world benefit, then when it came to Ricci, he just spazzed out completely, but gave a really easy to understand application of it.
    1
  10. It amazes me, as a non-mathematician, that the solution to such a long existent problem, should appear so relatively simple. Or am I viewing the solution simplistically?
    1
  11. He reminds me of the nutty scientist in Independence Day. If the aliens ever invade, I don't want him in charge of our defence - he'll be getting all sparkly eyed at the colour of their lasers whilst they fry us!
    1
  12. Dark magic - If that has to make sense, I don't want to use logic ever again. She lost me as soon as she said that the sum of the first infinite geometric series = 2, even though clearly, it can never equal 2.
    1
  13. TheMotU There's a difference between data and knowledge. To me, this appears to be just data.
    1
  14. Imafungi123 But skateboarding has demonstrable benefits - it's entertaining in the first place, and judging by this man's demeanour, a lifetime in maths, much less studying this group is anything BUT entertaining. Furthermore skateboarding keeps me fit, and it's social. And it has achievable goals that don't require five lifetimes to accomplish. 
    1
  15. ***** There are tangible benefits in conquering our planet, or ourselves. Commercial rewards, physical benefits. As Phil pointed out, there MAY be methodological benefits in understanding the monster set, but cracking it seems to me to be along the same lines as spending decades trying to calculate the largest prime - a massive misuse of time that could be spent a gazillion times better, even within the same discipline, because the end result is not some massive breakthrough or contribution to the science, But thank you for your comment.
    1
  16. mdiem Did I say that mathematics was not useful? I asked about this specific problem. To spend your entire life trying to unravel some possibly non-existent properties of a single super-large group of numbers,  when the solution appears to have no application to anything, given that there are an infinite number of mathematical conundrums that actually advance the discipline seems like a supreme waste of effort to me - even for recreational purposes. I thought that perhaps I was missing some deeper purpose to this set, but looking at the answers, that doesn't seem to be the case.
    1
  17. Joni Hanski I dunno, I think that  there's an elegant beauty and a deep functionality to some areas of mathematics. I just didn't see the application of this particular area. 
    1
  18. jamma246 I agree very much with the  political message you included there. but  perhaps mankind is hardcoded to work towards that which is directly useful. Perhaps in much harsher times, the humans that spent their time on trivia were the one who didn't eat. It seems that utilitarianism is one of our most fundamental imperatives?
    1
  19. Oh really? Why do you think that is pastichka?
    1
  20. It's bizarre to choose as your theoretical object, light, which in addition to travelling in straight lines, is absorbed and has an ambient component.
    1
  21. I appreciate you trying, I understood the concept of disproof but it was the actual working out that I didn't get - all that transposition of terms and stuff. Also, the bit I really didn't get was did the fraction have to get reduced to its simplest terms in the first place? Why use the smallest number - did it matter? And why does it matter if both numbers are even?
    1
  22. Which has the same four syllable count as Mississippi and one one thousand. Thinking about it now, I can't believe that four syllables plus the number equals one second. What about a two syllable numbers like seven, or thirteen, or longer ones over twenty? Now you have to estimate how much to contract the number to make the formula work! A better system would just be to go "uh" 4 times quickly and use your fingers to track the numbers!
    1
  23. Thank you for persisting.I'm going to have to watch his proof a few more times to try to wrap my head around it noww that you've given me some guidelines... Thanks again.
    1
  24. Not impressed. I hate these stupid infinity parlour tricks, and although Mark is likable enough, I didn't think he articulated them particularly well.
    1
  25. Wow - mathematicians have way too much time on their hands. But I suppose messing with numbers like this is how new mathematical truths are discovered. I just wonder how many millions of sequences like this have been calculated only to realise that they do nothing special whatsoever? Hold on, let's try to work it out - I'll multiply keith to the power of smith and brown...
    1
  26.  @inefffable  The multiverse has not even been demonstrated to exist, and here's a video telling us how many universes exist. If you don't see why that's ludicrous , you ought not to be ridiculing others.
    1
  27.  @MaryamMaqdisi  :)
    1
  28. We use one thousand all the time, but agree with the rest.
    1
  29. I can appreciate that the methodolgy required to crack this may have yielded new techniques for solving more important problems, but once they'd determined to process of elimination needed, was it really necessaty to waste 7 million computer hours proving it? And when they say "computer hours" what computer are they talking about? I have quite a reasonable processor, with a decent motherboard but if they're using an old 386 then it sounds more impressive than it really is!
    1
  30. You couldn't claim copyright on the binary sum of your channel name because there are almost infinite other ascii code combinations that could reach the same total. as for the colours - I could very easily produce a 64 bit colourway that was visually identical, yet differed by one bit and was wholly legal. Copyrighting numbers is as stupid and immoral as copyrighting human dna.
    1
  31. I'd say triple zero or triple oh, but if there are four zeros I'd say double zero/oh double zero/oh, or for five, I'd say double zero/oh triple zero/oh. It's about balancing the ned for clarity, with rememberability.
    1
  32. As usual, I've ended up ore confused afterwards, than before. It seems that all he described were different ways of expressing or ennumerating infinity, not different types of infinity? Of course, given that any number can be subdivided into an infinite number of fractions or decimals, it means that all of the parts of a number can never be actually listed, just as all of the numbers in infinity cannot, but he seemed to be complicating something fairly uncomplicated?
    1
  33. wow, thats a serious amount of power, and a massive waste of it!
    1
  34. Is there any value to smith numbers beyond their curiosity value?
    1
  35. I would have liked far more explanation about the working out. I completely didn't understand the reason for the conclusion.
    1
  36. How utterly pointless.
    1
  37. But what can you DO with that knowledge?
    1