Comments by "NS777" (@NStripleseven) on "Numberphile" channel.

  1. 0:35 ...it was about how to program a computer to play chess. Hmmm... The floor here is made out of floor.
    110
  2. Flashbacks to “this proof is trivial and is left as an exercise”
    43
  3. There isn't one. Even if there was, someone would tell him, and that would be it.
    7
  4. Then we introduce turning a number into a potato and back, giving any number you want immediately
    6
  5. funsterkeyven but only by a factor of about 2
    5
  6. Christopher Dibbs Funny you mention VSauce, right? Wrong!
    5
  7. This seemeth sus
    4
  8. Oni What. The heck. Is that.
    4
  9. True
    3
  10. That was terrible
    3
  11. And to think there are MUCH larger numbers that have been defined.
    3
  12. Peter Njeim Whatever, everyone knew what he was trying to write, and the double factorial is not a very common thing used.
    3
  13. X and zero?
    3
  14. Daniel Svalestad Okay, fine, click bait for people who like to think they are sort of mathematicians but who are really just people who like watching things on YouTube that they don't understand fully.
    3
  15. The way I personally look at this problem is as a tree of probabilities. The first branching of the tree is when the coin is flipped (p=0.5 for each side) and the tails branch splits another time (even split again, p=0.25 for each) into whether it’s Monday or Tuesday. In 0.5 cases, the coin says heads, and so the odds of flipping heads is 1/2.
    3
  16. Niiiice.
    3
  17. So is it nought or zero? PICK ONE, MAN!
    2
  18. There’s a concrete proof that says you can take every natural number and pair it with a real number, and no matter how many naturals you take into account (even all of them) you’ll still have reals left over.
    2
  19. deepak pradhan Wow, that's sad.
    2
  20. The Tzeentchian Representative D20 is an icosahedron, he mentioned it.
    2
  21. Why does plugging 3 into all of these sequences always seem to be the tipping point? The sequence for graham's number uses 3, Tree(3) is the first big one, f sub-3 of 3 is the first really big number, it's weird!
    2
  22. Tree vs Graham vs f sub-(whatever the heck huge infinity ordinal thing you want)
    2
  23. Here's a question, can you write Rayo's number with first-order set theory? If so, it's actually infinite, and he does not win.
    2
  24.  @JacksonBockus  more what I was asking is whether or not it’s possible to write out the definition of Rayo’s number (rather than the actual biggest number) using this language. I would have to imagine it’s not, seeing as you probably can’t refer to first order set theory within itself, but I don’t really know.
    2
  25. Jesse True, true.
    1
  26. While the answer in the video is easier to explain, this one sits better with me. If I were to try to show this problem to someone else, I would use this proof.
    1
  27. Hax
    1
  28. Actually, just play rock-scissors-paper-repeat no matter what, apparently.
    1
  29. Directory Error I know, but that's essentially the strategy this video recommends, put in simpler terms.
    1
  30. Directory Error Okay, if you watch the video again, and look at what exactly would happen when the strategy is repeated, you will see for yourself who is right.
    1
  31. Yup
    1
  32. Niiiiice
    1
  33. Probably a custom thing, wouldn’t be too hard to just code
    1
  34. Ok lol
    1
  35. So the fictionalist argues for the invention of math rather than its discovery. We’ve just made it up and it turns out it works really well and makes sense and what not.
    1
  36. Funny thing about the Leviathan number is that you can write it as 10000000000000000…00000000000000000.
    1
  37.  @thewhitefalcon8539 ”Nine thousand five hundred thirty-eight”
    1
  38. 'Scuse me?
    1
  39. Sike Well, you were correct (Bina Turtle)
    1
  40. Whoooooa
    1
  41. Yeah, this should be a thing. xD
    1
  42. Seriously, though, what is -1!
    1
  43. Markus Sojakka YOU HAVE HACKED THE UNIVERSE
    1
  44. Gun beats rock
    1
  45. Has the spook
    1
  46.  @mikec3618  then the numbers would be numberphile-phile numbers
    1
  47. 6:08 states the issue of differences in average team strength, proceeds to not address it at all
    1
  48. Is the light on or off? Yes
    1
  49. Well, let's see. I don't care, pick something, you can find a formula for it.
    1
  50. Not even close to the size of Graham's number. Insane.
    1