Видео

Decades of research she says...after how long have our brains been here?!?

stacking higher dimensional oranges, a problem the world was anxious about

is it just me or is there really a spadeload unspoke assumptions? I can't even see the 1st graph is biunivocally coherent with the 1st cube according to the just stated rules. Reminds me of high schoolers in the US getting unnecessarily positively lost when simple equations systems are written so "informally" (even by teachers), say without brackets, modding equations in place, adding or removing bits, one soon can't even read which equations are part of the system, which are not, which step one is reading or writing, if a bit has been parsed or not, etc. to the point one really needs 30 extra IQ points just to be able to wade through the totally avoidable ambiguity. I def don't have that much spare IQ.

I mean, it’s not REALLY a paradox if the paradox stems from an axiom and that axiom is required to save the ramblings of a madman (Cantor) 😅

Math (teachers) never looked so good.

"Are prime numbers just a figment of our collective imagination?" The human race does not have a collective imagination, so, no.

but how do we find the most efficient strategy to catch the robber on a cop win graph

Again, I miss this show.

Oh I miss this one…

the plank length disallows an infinitely small piece of any real object and therefore disallows making two objects out of one so maybe get your logic in line with reality before declaring a paradox

The axiom delivers a reset within the hierarchal parameters of some other train of reasoning. It avoids mathematical rigor without account.

Fun Fact removing the Axiom of Choice and Replacing it with Hahn Banach will give non measurable sets not Vitali tho

I don't understand 7:15 , the transition from 1/2 1/2 = to zero because the area is zero?... I don't understand

Part of the 'problem' [esp for communicating with the lay person] is that 'infinity' itself isn't that well understood in the first place. The set 'goes on and on' aspect, and the separate 'counting' aspect are distinct concepts that get confounded when the set is the 'integers' that appear to match the countings. The bijection between the positive integers and the evens is between _different_ sets (and their particular orderings). Both sets 'go on and on' in a definite countable order so are of the same 'countable size'. For the rationals, the ordering isn't (for the purpose here) by linear value, rather by one of the diagonalization orders. It is that ordering which makes the set 'countable'. Having decided that one _can_ count the rationals, there is a flip to an order that doesn't appear to have the countable property (but is the same set) that is then used to show that the reals are definitely larger even though we get into the 'alternating' vs 'between' problem of reals and rationals (i.e. reals having smaller infinitesimals that the rationals ;-) If you want to further confuse the issue you get into the 1.000000... being preceded by 0.999999... for some arbitrarily small infinitessimal ! Monty-Hall had it easy.

Still looks out of phase!

👍. Great explanation.

Interesting. As a beginner chess player, it seems it would be possible to implement infinite chess online as a game in the same way finite chess is implemented. I understand there is often a rule that if a piece is not captured or there is no check within N moves, where N is specified before the game starts, the game is a draw. So maybe infinite chess with finite N could be implemented or maybe the most up to date chess bot or algorithm would be upgraded to play infinite chess and set to play itself to find interesting infinite chess games and strategies. Or maybe infinite chess puzzles could be implemented?

I wish they did category theory before ending 💢

I'm so glad that people in my country can be that smart! I hope there will be more people like Maryna! (She's from Ukraine)

Way better than the woke mind virus info people deal with

I ca make a tuple theoretic model for the finite surreal numbers. That would be the Dyadics, which are the numbers you find on an old fashioned ruler with imperial divisions (fractions of inches).

a

The Silver Spin... its power could surpass even the Golden Spin, and the Bronze Spin could surpass the Silver Spin. But how can one go beyond infinity?

This only seems paradoxical on the surface with these artificial examples that seek every mathamatically possible corner case regardless of its probability. In practice, the system is attempting to solve the particular real problems of a specific election involving a population of real people who lack complete information. How often is an anomaly expected for the given parameters, how probable and impactful is a type of strategic manipulation and tactical voting in actual practice? Something that may be plausible for a group of 12 close aquaintences, may be nearly imposible to acheive in a population of 100k strangers, half of which may choose not to vote at the last moment. The normal concern is not so much getting the 1st verses 2nd choice correct but rather avoiding an accidental worst case, or preventing some long term degredation like system capture by one or two groups.

I think the set S at 5:02 has measure 0. It's all the rationals between -1 and 1. Since they are the rationals, they can be ordered, and they are countably infinite. Put a little open interval of length a around the first one, a/2 around the second, a/4 around the third, etc. Add up all the lengths, and you get a/(1 - a). You can make a as small as you want, so the measure of the set S is zero.

I wish this series back 😢

"What are numbers made of? [...] Nothing, provided at least that you stipulate nothing exists." Incredible statement.

What a well produced and great series. Such a shame that they stopped.

"We can simulate the second round". If only it was so simple. In reality, other candidates give support to the remaining top two candidates, depending who won the first round. Furthermore, voters tend to not turn up in round two if their preference did not win.

This is so good. Set theory is such a weird and cool space of research. Is the non measurable aspect of these sets used to understand quantum mechanics? Is the immeasurability of S similar at all the the immeasurability of quantum variables? And could the space of all functions (with the axiom of choice) that you can apply to S generate a set of all possible combinations of all elements? Would that set also be non measurable?

Absolutely a great video

If an infinite series which gets smaller and an infinite series which gets larger meets, does that mean the whole universe exists in each atom of my body? If so, am i god?

The core problem is: is mathematics a natural phenomena that we are discovering or have we made it up and the structure of our observational reality is reflective of it???

she is very pretty 😶

If we compare this to wavelengths of light, a sphere would be the colour yellow.

I have seen this video YEARS ago as a teenagers and I am only understanding it fully now that I am taking Computer Organization in college and I suddenly remembered about this video mid-lecture. Thank you PBS Infinite Series for implanting this in my brain until now 😅

Finally I found an explanation of quantum computing that kinda makes sense! Thank you

It seems weird to call S sizeless. Where R, Q, and Z are defined as the number of real, rational, and integer numbers respectively, something with size 1 consists of R/Z total points. We divide this size 1 into R/Q sets of Q/Z points (length Q/R). We pick 1 point (length Z/R) from each of the R/Q sets (Z/R * R/Q) to form S with length Z/Q, which might be evaluated 0 because there are infinite rational numbers for every integer. We then take 2Q/Z copies of S for a total length of 2.

4:48 Why cannot I extend the (0,1) semicircle into a 3/4th circle or a complete circle excluding two points to argue that all the real numbers have a one to one correspondence with just the semicircle and I still have infinitely many points left over in the interval (0,1) to show that (0,1) is bigger than the set of all real numbers?

There is an unfortunate inaccuracy around 4:37. The statement is based on the false premise that a game of chess can only be won or lost rather than drawn. But by considering a few closely related games where draws are redefined as wins for one side, we can reach the correct conclusion that either (1) there is a strategy for white to win or (2) there is a strategy for black to win or (3) both sides have a strategy that guarantees at least a draw. Most believe (3) is very likely true, but it has not been proven and doing so appears computationally impractical.

Ever since finding this concept in like, first year math, I found it fascinating!!

Cute but incomprehensible 🤔

According to an article published in May 2024, any number can be divided by zero with a simple elementary school-level operation. According to the article, the operation 50/0 is performed as follows: 50 / 0 = 0 A( 50 ) (A is the exponent above the parenthesis, but unfortunately I couldn't write it here). In this operation, the zero after the equal sign is the value of the quotient and A(50) is the remainder. The proof of this operation is as follows: 50 / 0 = 0 A( 50 ) 50 = 0 x 0 A( 50 ) 50 = ( 0 x 0 ) + 50 50 = 0 + 50 50 = 50 This article examines this issue in detail. It also tries to refute one by one the explanations of why a number cannot be divided by zero. For those interested, information about the articles is below: 1.Article Information Article Title: The problems created by zero in the division operation, their reasons and an attempt at a solution Article Address: www.academia.edu/118447190/The_problems_created_by_zero_in_the_division_operation_their_reasons_and_an_attempt_at_a_solution_S%C4%B1f%C4%B1r%C4%B1n_b%C3%B6lme_i%C5%9Fleminde_olu%C5%9Fturdu%C4%9Fu_sorunlar_nedenleri_ve_%C3%A7%C3%B6z%C3%BCme_y%C3%B6nelik_bir_deneme_%C3%A7al%C4%B1%C5%9Fmas%C4%B1 2.Article Information Article Title: A study to prove that the denominator can be zero in fractional numbers Article Address: www.academia.edu/118448116/A_study_to_prove_that_the_denominator_can_be_zero_in_fractional_numbers_Kesirli_say%C4%B1larda_paydan%C4%B1n_s%C4%B1f%C4%B1r_olabilece%C4%9Fini_kan%C4%B1tlamaya_y%C3%B6nelik_bir_%C3%A7al%C4%B1%C5%9Fma&nav_from=a54f476f-5cf7-4264-ab57-7383abc3d91f&rw_pos=0 (This article has been translated into English with a translation program.)

My idea is that S is not Lebesgue measurable but is measurable by another type of measure. For me, the paradox comes from the discretisation of the unit interval. The passage from continuity to the discrete world is the cause of trouble.

Please define Pi? - write down Dedekind cut for Pi?

Is it too early for infinitesimals yet?

Ok trying to work this out, the number of equivalence classes is c (order of the continuum) divided by ℵ0 (countable infinity), so that is the number of elements in S. c is 2 to the power of ℵ0, so it's 2^ℵ0/ℵ0 which is infinite, but what order of infinity is it? Note that the Lebesque measure of c differs depending on how much space it represents and the Lebesque measure of ℵ0 is zero, different from the number of elements. Anyway it's obvious that to give S a size, you have to extend your number system to include infinitesimals.

My favorite consequence of the axiom is that anything I chose is legit choice function. Just pick your favorite number in the set.

Wait so what is even the purpose or usefulness of this concept? Why would we want sizeless sets??

And then, a K-pop band started playing Ska, and we all fell into a black hole.