Comments by "Silly Sad" (@sillysad3198) on "Mathologer" channel.

  1. I LOVE THE PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!
    9
  2. it is not well justified that (in case we have multiple solutions to the equation) we must pick a single value to assign as a result of the infinite expression. Venturing to infinity we de-facto REDEFINE the relation "=", we broaden the definition -- no surprise it loses some characteristics, namely transitivity -- the same philosophical trouble happens to numbers and operations when we broaden their definition. also, our arithmetic may be defined as a system of SYMBOLIC operations, in this case your "...." is just a syntax error, and you are trying to assign a meaning to an error.
    9
  3. > Mouse flavoured cat food. How have they not thought of this? cats do not buy catfood! you can not market the food to cats, you market it TO HUMANS!
    8
  4. "popular vote" is simply irrelevant. the voting members of USA are THE STATES. ...when will the democrats learn?
    6
  5. i found an answer to the question!!! why do mirrors "flip" left-right? because GRAVITY!
    5
  6. 1=2 only IF you assert TRANSITIVITY to the relation "=" that you have established between the numbers and the infinit fraction in question.
    5
  7. by the way, i love this piece, specifically for the questioning of the very terms we reason about the reality with. this is truly challenging in every aspect. still there is room to explain the nature of the bias: why do we imagine this "left-right flip".
    3
  8. I recently pondered, what could be a line of reasoning that lead Pythagoras to his theorem? He did not know the Pythagoras theorem, so that he could not search for it. Finally it dawned on me, he was building squares inside squares (vertexes on the edges of the outer square). Taking in account the magical thinking and obsessions of those guys, seems plausible.
    3
  9. infinities do not satisfy equations because they are never EQUAL.
    3
  10. I wish I have seen your videos when i was a middle-school student. an explanation like this one could save me PLENTY of time and nerves. in particular, this part: "and now we come full circle to..." is fatally missing from the standard curriculum. this part really makes all the sense in maths.
    2
  11. when i was a kid, i used to ask adults why do they say "a mirror flips left and right"? they told me, look, your right hand is on the left... hold on, mam, can't you see my right hand in on the right side of the mirror?! .. but look where is my right hand when you look at me... IT IS ON THE LEFT!
    2
  12. numberfile sucks.
    2
  13. voice recording is audibly better in this video when you are not "here"
    1
  14. i like the idea of anti-fingers, the next step is co-fingers, i am dying to see the definition.
    1
  15. +Mathologer No! binary does not destroy finger count :)
    1
  16. congrats on the 100K subs!
    1
  17. this is a magnificent notion!!! why have i been missing it for so long :)
    1
  18. you videos are touching an interesting question: why the math works? it is very useful to watch your material, even though i have learnt it all decades ago.
    1
  19. it is important to note that you in fact REDEFINE the relation of equality. and (as far as i know) our arithmetic equality is properly defined only for finite objects. all those manipulations with infinite sums (including parenthesis, i am afraid) go beyond the definition of the arithmetic itself. well, our "intuition" in elementary maths is itself an interesting topic... we learned about numbers so early in our life that we do not feel the limitations of this concept.
    1
  20. so true! i nearly quit watching, right before i realized that it makes sense.
    1
  21. you really need to explain several points much deeper. this point about splitting the attraction points, particularly those moments of splitting deserve a dedicated video of their own. it was unclear to me even after pause and rewind. It is clear how you generate one tractor beam, although it requires additional explanation how multiple beams go (at least they must be of different colours on the picture) also the schematic diagram of the iterative process is badly sketched, i will send you my variant soon
    1
  22. here is my way of depicting recursion: http://file.bestmx.net/ee/tmp/mandelbrot.png note: this self intersection is crucial for understanding.
    1
  23. +Mathologer this is why people practice multipart videos: one overview, and a series of videos emphasizing certain points. i can imagine one video dedicated to multicolour depictions of the M. set. another about tractor beams (interesting stuff in its own right) and of course one that defines the M. set in the simplest language (without delving into special properties of the regions of the set) -- this video could be skipped by advanced viewers.
    1
  24. +Mathologer you seem to love your views counter more than your viewers?
    1
  25. +Mathologer i hoped my suggestions do not levy more time spent on your part.
    1
  26. +Chinmay Chandraunshuh no.
    1
  27. the proof was presented nicely.
    1
  28. let's say, rational numbers are ENOUGH for all practical purposes. and this statement is ironically accurate from the mathematical perspective... you know what i mean :)
    1
  29. but, wait! it is the vector product. i knew i knew the chirality of the vector product should play one day!
    1
  30. besides the content, your videos deliver a superb production quality.
    1
  31. I recollect, i was pondering for quite a while in the highschool: if it is always possible to squeeze a rational number between two random irrational numbers. but, you know, their cardinality! mindblowing.
    1
  32. +Mathologer but they did not teach us this particular fact. and i found it more horrible than banach-tarski paradox. ok, one continuum transforms into another -- nothing special. a continuum has no "size" -- quite graspable -- cardinality is the same. but, wait, how is it possible to "saturate" a continuum with a set of lesser cardinality? -- that is really crazy
    1
  33. now i know how to multiply by 0. it was the most difficult problem for me
    1
  34. i had to backfill the problems formulations too! by the moment you gave a countdown i was wondering "what was the problem???"
    1
  35. > The paradox comes from trying to apply it to real-world objects that consist of a finite number of particles. no. simply no. the particles are not a pat of the paradox.
    1
  36. > that is aa recurring problem, people think maathematics is bound by reality spot on! man! now imagine people do the same fallacy with computers, and then they act SURPRISED when they "hacked" or simply are tricked by a "respected vendor"
    1
  37. > it's not really a redefinition, you are a moron. > The problem is another; namely, what does it mean to do 4^1/2. you are a moron. > But wait. 4^(1/2)=(-2), yet similarly 4^(1/2)=(+2), thus -2 = 2, which is a violation of transitivity. Would you not then say that the inverse operation of squaring a number also redefines you are a complete moron! P.S. it would be interesting to redefine "exponentiation" without the notion of "repetitive multiplication" this way we would preserve the signum information.
    1
  38. the first occurrence of mind switching is: "Mindswap" by Robert Sheckley (1966)
    1
  39. the proof with numbers involves too much unspoken assumption about the numbers.
    1
  40. how is it possible that this Tusi is credited for the discovery that was made by Archimedes a 1000 years earlier? did Tusi also invented a time machine? P.S. "dislike&unsub" for political agenda
    1