1729 and Taxi Cabs - Numberphile

The number 1729 is "famous" among mathematicians. Why?
More links & stuff in full description below ↓↓↓
Featuring Dr James Grime and Professor Roger Bowley.
1729 is known as the Hardy--Ramanujan number or "Taxi Cab Number".
NUMBERPHILE
Website: www.numberphile.com/
Numberphile on Facebook: / numberphile
Numberphile tweets: / numberphile
Subscribe: bit.ly/Numberphile_Sub
Videos by Brady Haran
Patreon: / numberphile
Brady's videos subreddit: / bradyharan
Brady's latest videos across all channels: www.bradyharanblog.com/
Sign up for (occasional) emails: eepurl.com/YdjL9
Numberphile T-Shirts: teespring.com/stores/numberphile
Other merchandise: store.dftba.com/collections/n...

[@luisdanielmesa]

I stayed in room 1729 on my last trip, all I could think of was "Ramanujan"

[@sikanuasamanjit3014]

Luis Daniel Mesa Velasquez I am Ramanujan in Numb3rs

[@whatever946]

Did you know the smallest taxicab number is 2 not 1729?

[@lx4302]

@@whatever946 yes but not distinct

[@kishvan2008]

The Man Who Knew Infinity

[@oldcowbb]

i love how the move add little things like this, even many of hardy's quote are real

[@edsanville]

Guys, I don’t think Grime was literally saying that he doesn’t think Ramanujan was a genius. I think he was trying to explain the debate about whether the 1729 observation was premeditated or not before the conversation with Hardy. EVERYONE knows Ramanujan was a genius of historical proportions. ESPECIALLY a mathematician like Dr. Grime. I personally don’t think Grime is some sort of bizzare Ramanujan hater.

[@aditube8781]

Yea makes sense

[@varun8762]

Yeah

[@akumar8973]

I disagree with these guys who say he wasn't a genius although i do agree that Ramanujan probably did work on it this number earlier. However, looking at the contribution that he made in the field of mathematics despite having no formal training in pure mathematics and dying at a very young age, he must be a "Genius".

[@TheRealFlenuan]

Yes, it depends on how one defines "genius" after all.

[@einzelganger7744]

He is genius. He is better than hilbert

[@anjanidubey6796]

Ashwani Kumar they are just jealous

[@maythesciencebewithyou]

The point is that there is no "true genius" as often imagined by the people and shown in fiction. Even the smartest people cannot come up with such things on the spot. All the geniuses are geniuses because they put in the effort. It's to motivate people to do the same and not despair, because they don't come close to some fictious believe in true genius.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

Geniuses are great minds whose INDIVIDUAL discoveries/contributions to a particular field are recognised by peers (sometimes posthumously) as being particularly extraordinary/impressive, usually because they upturned conventions or made progress where others couldn't. Now, ask yourself if Ramanujan fits the bill...

[@devrajyaguru2271]

Ramanujan was smarter than any of us and numbers were his personal friends

[@singingbanana]

@coolguty Hey, I know. This was just about the famous taxi story. Ramanujan was cool.

[@annevanderbijl3510]

@1729 math_blog WOAH YOURE USERNAME HAS 1729 IN IT

[@romanieo]

"Ramanujan, not a genius...?" You must be kidding me Grime!!!

[@prateekgurjar1651]

Oh, yeah he came up with that iun his previous researches, but indeed he still was a genius lol

[@joshuarosen6242]

He can't possibly have meant that but he did say it. I presume he was trying to say that Ramanujan was not such a genius as to have thought of this on the spur of the moment but he was surely a genius by any reasonable definition.

[@chikuman6224]

Grime is just jealous

[@anjumyasmin]

Amana Prateek correct

[@mannanalammannu8383]

Who say that Sir Ramanujan not a genius..............

[@karlbetcher6773]

0:57 Oh well, that's just a theory... A number theory! Thanks for counting! -Ramanujan

[@shalomfrandev5833]

Even Ramanujan wasn't a mental calculator, But he was a genius.

[@acetate909]

He actually was a mental calculator. Read 'The Man Who Knew Infinity', he could do complex calculations in his head in a matter of seconds.

[@punith.dg.619]

Oh here he is, the one who stole Ramanujan's notebook. Thief.. Thief..

[@CertifiedGenius007]

Really? Ramanujan isn't a genius for not noticing that he could use negative numbers to do gimmicks...? wow. Not to sound offended, but Ramanujan was not just playing with some random number fun, he was familiar with 1729 because he was (on his own!!!!) trying to disprove Fermat's last theorem stating no solution exists for n=3.... x^3 + y^3 = z^3 where x,y,z are POSITIVE INTEGERS. Numbers like 1729 barring the 1^3 were close to the solutions..... Truly sad that one of the greatest mathematicians with arguably the most natural talent with numbers had to die at such a young age..

[@IronicHavoc]

One guy only said that the point of the anecdote wasn't meant to be about Ramanujan's genius. He never claimed he wasn't a genius, and in fact he has said on other ocassions that Ramanujan was a genius and "arguably the most naturally talented mathematician". Another person in the video brought up the negative numbers thing mostly as a fun fact/joke. These segments were shot separately and likely unrelated aside from the general topic. I can see how the way the video is edited might lead you to interpret it as downplaying Ramanujan but I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

[@bhuvansv3701]

He knew about 1729 because he was working on the Diophantine equation a^3+b^3=c^3+d^3.

[@darkpanda239]

@@bhuvansv3701 and working on something doesn't make you a genius?

[@bhuvansv3701]

@@darkpanda239 I meant he knew about 1729 because he was working on the Diophantine equations and not because he was working on Fermat's last theorem. I never said anything about his genius.

[@darkpanda239]

@@bhuvansv3701 ah, I thought you meant he wasn't a genius coz he already worked on it before

[@mindatrest6838]

Srinivasa Ramanujan was truly an enigma.... he still is..... the greatest Indian genius who walked the earth....

[@fredsellers6500]

MindAtRest Agreed. The guy in this video doesn't make any sense when he says he's not a genius.

[@kutsagotra2771]

MindAtRest also C V Raman.

[@monika.alt197]

@@fredsellers6500 ‘the guy in the video’, Dr. James Grime never said Ramanujan wasn’t a genius, he quoted G.H. Hardy

[@fredsellers6500]

@@monika.alt197 shhhhhh 😂

[@RunstarHomer]

@@fredsellers6500 Grime didn't say Ramanujan wasn't a genius. He only said that that wasn't the point that Hardy was trying to make.

[@Worldly_Love4]

Any mathematician intelligence is a common sense for shri Ramanujan.

[@mightknight9988]

Exactly

[@ultimognu_catan]

Man the guy at the end is so critical! 91 is smaller but 0 is smaller yet again, is the sum of any number cubed plus its negative

[@danvindsouza2725]

Like If you think the same that Ramanujan was one of the best Mathematician. Shrinivas Ramanujan was a great genius. He was someone who new several numbers and their properties as though they were his friends. He contributed a lot towards mathematics which also provided a base for physics. He is my favorite mathematician. I respect him a lot. And Hardy to for recognizing the talent Ramanujan possessed.

[@rtos]

The significant part is that its the *_smallest_* number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways. Hardy must have encountered dozens of such instances in his discussions with Ramanujan, and chose to mention just one of them in his autobiography. The anecdote sheds light on a mind with amazing ability to understand numbers & their relationship & a memory which could instantly recollect minutiae like these.

[@HangLooseMongooseYT]

Watching this now because the movie trailer for Ramanujan just came out. Excited

[@singingbanana]

@WhiteRAZOR That would make a fun video - more maths of Futurama. Yes!

[@scix8794]

Honestly if ramanujan would have lived longer he would have been the greatest mathematician who ever lived

[@tarun1982]

one of the.. possibly. and thanks and namaste :D

[@williamwallace4080]

False, several mathematicians died young.

[@wesselbindt]

"Ramanujan wasn't a genius"? That's an odd point to make. Love this channel, btw.

[@petermclaughlin4697]

Academic snobbery and meddling mother made the life of this genius more painful. How things may have been different had these factors been eliminated. Parallel between Ramanujan and Mozart is uncanny. But for Mozart substitute meddling father.

[@blauzhu]

The BBC podcast "A Brief History of Mathematics" has an episode on Hardy and Ramanujan if anyone is interested in knowing more about them. It is in episode 9.

[@BigDBrian]

this takes me back.

[@vanhouten64]

If you type in 5,318,008 on a calculator and turn it upside-down it spells BOOBIES

[@Rekko82]

That's the fun side of math. :)

[@sportyninja]

"the proofs that he did were already well known... " I've read/seen more than a dozen accounts on Ramanujan and his association with Hardy, published/produced by different people at different times. In so far, I never came across that whatever material Ramanujan sent to Hardy was already well known. What is almost always written or said is that contained of *mostly* proven or well-known theorems, but also a few novel or completely unknown proofs.

[@williamwallace4080]

He's not talking about when he worked worked with Hardy

[@Mozza314]

1729 is also a Carmichael number, one of the rare exceptions to the prime test that a^p = a (mod p) for any natural number a. (In other words, 1729 is not prime, but a^1729 = a mod 1729 for a = 1,2,3,4,5,... etc. and usually only primes do that.)

[@excelprotuts9015]

Mr. Ramanujan is one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. Oddly the negative number shown of the 2 cubes is very interesting to me. 91 is divisor of 1729. What is even more interesting to me is that he said this in the year 1919. 91*19=1729 (i like to keep it simple).

[@RT-gj3sm]

Fact is that these guys eating pissas would never know the struggle of a former mathematician. He was from a time where none of advanced mathematical theory were originated. He was a man with no education. With no such medical support away from his family struggled only for his passion for mathematics. He owns my respect 👏👏👏

[@jeebersjumpincryst]

great to have u back in these prof Bowley!

[@jaysaspara7623]

Even the number 1728 is special... it is the smallest number which can be expressed as a sum of three cubes and is a perfect cube itself as well 6^3 + 8^3 + 10^3 = 1728 = 12^3

[@stephenbeck7222]

+Jay Saspara What about 9^3 = 8^3 + 6^3 + 1^3?

[@jaysaspara7623]

+Stephen Beck sorry i meant 3 consecutive even nos... anyways thanks for the info bro!

[@quarkyquasar893]

Where is the "positive natural number"? Otherwise it's minus infinity...

[@nikhilsharma9222]

@Red Bull He did not say three consecutive numbers, he said three consecutive EVEN numbers.

[@Ziphoroc]

@@nikhilsharma9222 Even or not he was still wrong about it being the smallest

[@ashwinnarayanVlog]

Yay! I asked for this number on Numberphile's facebook page as a comment to a status update but I never thought you'd actually do it!

[@llamallanaduck]

At least to me, it seems like the guy in the video was trying to convey that Hardy was speaking in admiration of Ramanujan’s character and dedication to his work, as opposed to just an inherent, “genius” ability to do quick mental calculations (and he just chose his words poorly). From watching lots of numberphile videos, I don’t get the impression anyone on this channel thinks Ramanujan isn’t a genius.

[@timgillam7964]

91 is also a factor of 1729. 19*91 = 1729.

[@NGC-7635]

KZbin has been throwing this video on my homepage for over 2 years and for some reason I've never felt like watching it until now. But seriously I must of seen this yellow taxi cab thumbnail close to 50 times

[@Alex_1729]

Oh! The Ramanujan's number. The self-consistent expression in higher dimensions. Which forces us to use Ramanujan's modular functions which fixes the dimensions of space-time to be ten (10). He lived very short but left us so much. Srinivasa was genius.

[@pauldavies8554]

A lot of non-native English speakers seem to be making similar comments here, taking issue with Dr Grime saying that Ramanujan wasn't a genius. He's not saying that at all, he's saying that this particular insight doesn't make him a genius, that's all! I guess it's quite subtle, but honestly, he isn't saying that the guy isn't a genius overall!

[@alyssaalcantara6739]

Thanks! Have to know this for advanced functions/pre-calculus 😊

[@Hythloday71]

With regards to the correction at the end, to include the word 'POSITIVE', how do we know Hardy didn't anecdotally mis-quote Ramanujan ?

[@ARockThatRolls]

ahh, numberphile, bringing out the best of youtube.

[@rida3595]

Thank you!❤

[@CaptnMorshu]

Nice observation. This number is just getting more and more interesting.

[@Gastel]

At the end he should have said, "This is the smallest 'positive' number" or "This is the number with least magnitude" if he was being absolutely correct. But like we forgive Ramanujan, we'll forgive Roger.

[@williamwallace4080]

What are you blabbering about?

[@anticorncob6]

@Gastel Search for a list of prime numbers; when you find one that includes -1 let me know.

[@DrunkZergling]

From Wikipedia: The noun is related to the Latin verb gigno, genui, genitus, "to bring into being, create, produce." Genius, in the pure sense, is somebody who can create knowledge. Most people, even very smart people like Ramanujan, do not create knowledge, but rather they work very hard to collect knowledge. The guy in the video was making this distinction: Ramanujan didn't have an epiphany about the number, he had worked very hard to collect knowledge about it.

[@rcmeyerson]

@chaitan94 They're not discrediting him. It's just interesting. I'm glad that they went into that because now I know more about math.

[@Pika250]

Note that 0 cannot be included as one of the cubes. In fact this theorem was proved on an even bigger ring than the integers: the Eisenstein integers, defined as (x + icy)/2 where c^2 = 3 and where (x + y) is even.

[@crazychris960]

In the video they say that you cannot use negative numbers as the base, or else you could easilly derive a lot of small numbers. See 2:54

[@Lightn0x]

I feel proud because I knew this from one of singningbanana's old vids :P

[@abhinavdalal940]

I think this statement is incomplete that 1729 is the smallest number which can be represented as a sum of two cubes in two different ways . We have -1729 which is smaller than 1729 and it can be represented as sum of two different cubes in two different ways as (-12)^3+(-1)^3 and (-10)^3+(-9)^3 so there is not smallest hardy-ramanujan number .

[@JimmyIsTheBest1]

Wasn't his name Godfrey Hardy, not Geoffrey Hardy???

[@cuvautoofficial]

+JimmyIsTheBest1 Yes, Godfrey Harold Hardy.

[@JOJOSHgaming7514]

So, from these two guys' perspectives, you must be a superhuman who knows everything without learning beforehand to be called a genius.

[@numberphile]

@ZombieOwen23 we have and we will

[@MyLifeOfficial]

*Ramanujan* number will suffice. Hardy not required. I'm glad Wikipedia doesn't have it down as "Hardy Ramanujan". Quite typical in the academic world of mathematics to Europeanise anything that Indians (and other non-Europeans) do/have done. It's a shame really, as true recognition can inspire kids from these counties to reach for the stars and believe in their potential and to contribute to the intellectual and material wellbeing of the world. It's time for the world to write an accurate history of mathematics and pay credit where it's due and to undo the wrongs of the past. BTW I cannot see how anyone in their right and rational mind would not be able to recognise Ramanujan as a genius.

[@prateen2007]

Well said!

[@ravidhale81]

Ryt

[@copperbeard7196]

bruh they europeanise everything. and chineese chineesease everything so on.

[@rittwikkk]

2:47 mind your language son.

[@pradyutsarkar32]

Ramanujan was a great talented man. He said, 1729 is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two positive numbers vibes in two different ways. There were no negative number in Ramanujan theorem.

[@amatyarakshas5996]

If you allow negative numbers -1729 = (-12)^3 + (-1)^3 = (-10)^3 + (-9)^3 and -1729 < 91 so if we use your logic we haven't yet found the smallest taxicab number

[@PattyManatty]

or better yet, there is no smallest taxicab number

[@VisionaryFire]

Well I would say that negative numbers are not necessarily considered smaller, they are just lesser. Smaller just means closer to 0. A small negative number would be -1 for example. A large negative number would be like -1,000,000. NOTE: I'm not sure if this is considered to be true but it's just what makes since to me.

[@PattyManatty]

Visionary Universe I can buy that. Someone going -75mph could be said to be back going faster than someone going -5mph since in that case the negative is basically just direction. In other cases however, like money. If I have $-1000 I would say I have less money, or am less wealthy than someone with only $-10. This however is kind of open to interpretation. As soon as you have a negative you're dealing with debt. And you could say the former person has bigger debt. Tldr; this is just a matter of terminology

[@VisionaryFire]

Yes I agree, but I would say there is a difference in smaller and lesser. If you have $-1000 I would say you have a lesser amount of money. However I'm not sure if it makes sense to say you have a smaller amount. It's a larger negative number but still lesser.

[@cameodamaneo]

Right you are. You wouldn't say you were going "slower" now would you?

[@Alex_1729]

The man who can discover whole mathematics by himself is nothing less than a force of nature, a genius above all.

[@pickles224]

In case anyone was wondering, 50 is the smallest number that is the sum of 2 SQUARES in two different ways. 5^2+5^2 = 50 7^2+1^2 = 50

[@DelphianSociety]

I ordered a book on Ramanujan, should come in today

[@keithgdavies1]

Hardy's name was Godfrey, not Geoffrey.

[@eat_ze_bugs]

Not one person in history was born a genius; it takes time, discipline and practice to become one.

[@michaelbauers8800]

An interesting point. Some people are just smart though. Like really smart. I was telling my friend a story. I was at IBM in the 80s, computer programmer on contract. I think of myself as a somewhat competent programmer. Had a lot of practice. Have a few skills. Not one of those fancy 10X programmers you hear about though. Not what I call an alpha programmer...top dog...king of the hill. But you know, people generally like my work. So I had to work with some brain IBM brings in. A PhD I think. And he doesn't know this programming language called PERL. It's pretty new to him, and me. But he's figuring out PERL just reading the code, and ideas are coming to him, like the winds of a hurricane come to the east coast, or insert a better analogy. And I felt left behind. Like an econobox car racing a Vette. It's not just experience he had. His brain was wired better IMO. That all being said, there's no substitute for hard work. Magnus Carlson is the best chess player in the world, and on the short list of best ever. But he also had to put in the work. IMO, you don't get to the top with only natural talent, or hard work. You sort of need both in some combination.

[@jackhandma1011]

Ramanujan was certainly a genius of the highest class, though I get the point that realizing that property of 1729 isn't a sign of it.

[@mustafaeryurek3617]

1729 is almost a cube of a positive integer (12*12*12=1728). If 1729 was a cube, then we would have a counter-example to the Fermat's Last Theorem! (Or two counter-examples since there are two ways to represent 1729 as the sum of two cubes)

[@TheRealFlenuan]

Yeah, well, the theorem has already been proven…

[@Maeve_Rose]

The Real Flenuan you cant prove a theorum for all examples of the theorum. no matter what you will always be able to put more numbers to test, as numbers are in fact infinite. its just like in science how you cannot prove a positive,you can only prove a near infinite example of the positive.

[@Maeve_Rose]

The Real Flenuan you obviously don't understand how scientific method works. you can provide proof of a theorem but not prove the theorem for all instances.

[@TheRealFlenuan]

Michelle Kirkland Well you obviously don't understand how math works. You don't need the scientific method to prove something that doesn't require testing. The scientific method isn't used to prove mathematical realities.

[@rehamkcirtap]

The Real Flenuan You are correct. Doing an experiment in pure mathematics is a thing to be sure but it's for testing and stuff. Actual proofs are exercises in pure logic and when written correctly simply can't be argued against.

[@ameendeen8381]

I watched "The Man Who Knew Infinity" before this.

[@usernamenotfound80]

Maybe Bowley should not have stated that 91 "is the smallest number which is the sum of two cubes in two different ways if you allow negative numbers" as he has said that exactly due to inprecise wording. It should rather be the smallest positive integer which is the sum of two cubes in two different ways if you allow any integers.

[@FreeFireFull]

I have seen this used to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a boring number.

[@goodguy686]

1^3 + (-1)^3 = 2^3 + (-2)^3 = n^3 +(-n)^3 = 0 This just came into my head when he was talking about negative numbers, isn't zero the lowest number (that isn't negative) that you can call a taxi cab number if you allow for negative integers

[@alexcwagner]

I might go along with saying that the scalar multiples are trivial, but that doesn't make them not distinct.

[@LoudTristero]

Gotta love the Harvard mathematicians at Futurama for introducing me to this one :)

[@WhiteRAZOR]

Yay for Futurama, which James is also a fan of :)

[@the_blahhh]

"You'll forgive him because he was at death's door at the time." Chilling.

[@alexcwagner]

It looks similar, but it's not quite the same. Fermat's last theorem is that no positive integers (a, b, c) exist such that a^n + b^n = c^n, where n > 2. But, here we're dealing with cases of a^n + b^n = c^n + d^n.

[@ajuk1]

I possibly would have noticed that it was the sum of 2 cubes, but I wouldn't have noticed that it was the sum of 2 cubes in 2 separate ways.

[@holyreality02]

why is it called the "hardy-ramanujan" number? seems like it was all ramanujan

[@iamcap10dj]

Hey , I had found a Number which is the smallest number that can be expressed as following : for example, consider a four digit number xyzw i.e.x*1000+y*100+z*10+w Therefore, xyzw=x^x+y^y+z^z+w^w And it is... "3435" You may check it .

[@stephencholvat]

no, the smallest possible number of two cubes thar can be negative are x^3-x^3=(x+1)^3+(x+1)^3 and so on so any number will work.

[@Razzfazz87]

Wish me luck (or to be successful) as I have a math exam in 3.5 hours and I wanted to do something to get me into the mood of doing maths for 3 hours. Thanks for this video

[@keithmills778]

When I drove a taxi back in the early 1990s, the company I drove for had three series of taxi licenses-1700s, 1900s, and 2300s. If you had a number in the 1700 series, you would call the dispatcher with the last two digits of your number. If you drove 1764 (actually driven by “Animal”-never knew his real name), you would call in as car 64. If you were in the 1900 series, you would use 1 followed by the last two digits, so 1988 was car 188 to the dispatcher. If you were in the 2300 series, it was 2 followed by the last two digits, so 2321 would be 221. One fairly quiet day, when we were all getting bored, including the dispatcher, he announced that for the next fifteen minutes he would only take calls from cars with prime numbers. The taxi I usually drove was 1997, so I would work the radio as 197. Both 197 and 1997 are primes. Computer dispatching came in towards the end of my time as a driver. It wasn’t nearly as enjoyable as having the radio communication, but progress marches on.

[@bigboam]

Fascinating...

[@jeetendramehta4030]

Gori chamadi wale, Ramanajun is genius

[@DerrickDurden]

@J0Newtron Yes you have! 1^3+2^3=9 Now write another sum of two cubed numbers that equals 9 without the previous numbers, that is the point they made. It is like X^3+Y^3=9, X and Y only have one answer each.

[@anticorncob6]

@Gastel No there are no negative primes, look at the video for why 1 isn't prime and the same applies for -1; numbers have multiple ways of being split into prime factorization.

[@cukka99]

But that is the only way to express 16 as the sum of two cubes, so the point still holds that 1729 is the smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of two positive cubes in two different ways.

[@audiblemagician6751]

Anyone else realize they've also been in a 1729 taxi before

[@ertrzyiks]

0 argue makes sens for me, like 1^3 + (-1)^3 = 2^3+ (-2)^3 , going further we can use both negative bases and get huge negative number analogously to (-10)^3 + (-9)^3 = -1729

[@fritz3941]

Wasn't GH Hardy's name Godfrey, not Geoffrey?

[@singingbanana]

@hnaef83 Aww man. Sorry! I am an idiot hole.

[@Nadeem--ux7pt]

@1729 math_blog yyyuppp

[@plevyman]

Fun fact: 1729 is also a Carmichael number: take any a coprime to 1729, then a^{1728} is congruent to 1 mod 1729. (The analogous fact a^{p-1} congruent to 1 mod p is always true for a prime number p, but this says that 1729 "looks like" a prime number, without actually being one.) Also, coincidentally: 91 - that he gives as an example at the end - divides 1729.

[@Clint945]

Expanding this type of thinking into a pattern or a series can be used in computing algorithms which allow us to do more efficient factorizing etc... However really, it's just a bit of fun with numbers. But unexpected uses always seem to pop out of fun with numbers.

[@1212JackJohnson]

@Theelepeltjel I searched for and could'nt find my humility this morning, seems like we're in the same boat!

[@RibbittIII]

My favorite taxi cab number is the one I actually saw my last morning in New York City. It was early June 2017 when I was about to have breakfast, then I saw 7N78......

[@Alexandervo5]

i'm not sure if i'm getting this, why doesn't 3^3 and 2^3 disprove this?

[@sherlock_221]

I really hate to see this small number of likes on this gem of a video...

[@splodeyferret]

3:08 But is it really the smallest number which is the sum of two cubes in two different ways if you allow negative numbers and fractions? I'm willing to forgive you iff you are at death's door right now ;)

[@timmartindale75]

was it Godfrey Hardy, rather than Geoffrey?

[@kackers]

so the hardy guy said his taxi no. was 1729 and then ramanujan said its the only number that can be the sum of two positive cubed intergers and that is why it is a taxi cab number

[@merkinmanj875]

god mathematicians are have EXTREMELY interesting.....they try to make someone fell better by talking about the number of the taxi they rode in lol...love it

[@BossManMike07]

Too bad it's not 1738

[@audiblemagician6751]

Why

[@Fematika]

+Audible Magician It is a meme.

[@audiblemagician6751]

ok...

[@jabacon5866]

+Michael Dudley GP left

[@joshuafashian7766]

+Michael Dudley I'm like hey what's up hello

[@tomfogle8173]

Also interesting that 1729 = 91*19

[@GeorgesElHowayek]

73 is the best number: It is the 21st prime number (with 21=7x3) and it is mirror 37 is the 12th prime number (and the mirror of 12 is 21). In binary, 73 is a palindrome "1001001" -- Sheldon Cooper

[@Razzfazz87]

@illustriouschin I don't use facebook or twitter and all I watched on youtube today before the exam were math videos to get me into the mood for math. I watched a few videos from Vi Hart and this one. Then I went to the university 4 hours before the exam to talk with friends. Not exclusively math but also other stuff like "who was your favorite prof before you started here" etc.