569936821221962380720 - Numberphile

[@HonkeyKongLive]

Part of me wants to turn "you absolute telephone number" into an insult now.

[@seijakijin6211]

How about "your momma is so fat, her weight is a valid telephone number!"

[@Irondragon1945]

"Lange Leitung" ("long connection line") is an expression used in German to express that someone takes a while to understand basic things. Reminded me of it.

[@nielsendc1]

Ive heard it used in golf as an insult, describing someones scorecard 😂

[@Z3nt4]

@@seijakijin6211 Friendly reminder that mass isn't the same as weight. Also, you failed to specify your units so one shouldn't assume that that's an offensive remark.

[@abdullahenaya]

Zansky A friendly reminder that vocabulary isn't the same when dealing with physics versus just normal conversation. When you search up the definition of weight, the first definition literally is "mass".

[@macronencer]

"What are you building with your blocks, sweetheart?" "A black hole, Mum."

[@pepkin88]

A block hole

[@timbeaton5045]

@@pepkin88 Definitely my pun of the day!

[@macronencer]

@@pepkin88 Haha!

[@Maharani1991]

omg :D

[@Triantalex]

??

[@scooldrood]

mathematicians: yeah i like that but, what if it was more difficult

[@nikhildeshmukh6851]

Explosion 💥

[@JustAManifold]

Ahahaha

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

Okay, hear me out... what if we made it even more abstract?

[@Triantalex]

false.

[@seedmole]

Aha! We finally have a more accurate rendition of the Ultimate Question! It is "What is negative 80358738812075974 cubed plus 80435758145817515 cubed plus 12602123297335631 cubed?"

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

Guess we didn't even need Deep Thought.

[@asthmen]

@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 Maybe all of the Earth's history has led up to this moment, to find the answer...

[@lvander877]

@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 actualy it was the earth that was up to calculating the ultimate question, deep thought just calculated the answer.

[@simulatrix]

This has exactly 42 likes, so I shall not give 1 more

[@nb3626]

Came on, just realize, without US, living human beings as part of the "computer", the computer Earth itself could not calculate this question for the answer! 😂😂😂

[@IshfaaqPeerally]

Of course, *42* had to be the last one to be solved

[@sailor5853]

again

[@imveryangryitsnotbutter]

Hey, at least we managed it before the Vogons got here.

[@SherlockSage]

I knew I forgot to add something to my 2020 disaster bingo card: Vogons

[@imveryangryitsnotbutter]

@@SherlockSage At least if this planet gets demolished this year, we know that 2021 can't possibly be any worse.

[@SherlockSage]

Not for us, at least. The rest of the universe, on the other hand >_>

[@VitaminGK]

Old memories when Numberphile speaks about one random number which we didn't even know were significant

[@bsatyam]

Every number is significant in some way I guess.

[@VitaminGK]

@@bsatyam I didn't say they weren't significant. I just said that we didn't know were significant.

[@bsatyam]

@@VitaminGK You meant to say we didn't know how they were significant xD

[@ashutoshmahapatra537]

I saw u in CSK channel in MSD retirement guess we have same interests. ;)

[@VitaminGK]

@@ashutoshmahapatra537 yeah. I was the one

[@valthiriansunstrider2540]

Thanks for saying "observable universe" rather than just "universe"

[@koenraaddendievel411]

Ok. 3blue1brown will have to wait. Simultaneous number alert

[@6civo]

Triple alert! James Grime @ singing banana uploaded a video too!

[@leadnitrate2194]

@@6civo Matt Parker uploaded today too

[@harryrobson4718]

Oh what a wonderful day!

[@TrimutiusToo]

I saved this one for last... though I just literally watched them in chronological order even though they came out within minutes from each other... (at least in chronological order of my notifications that is)

[@GRBtutorials]

Not a coincidence, though, it’s a collab!

[@arneboker6385]

"It would also weigh more than all the other atoms in the observable universe" - to me that's even more amazing than the cube's size! It looks like it's about 1/42 (or whatever... let's call it somewhere between 1/10 and 1/100) of the diameter of the Milky Way, which itself on the scale of the observable is just a little unremarkable spot. Tells you something about the incredible emptiness of the universe. You could concentrate all of its (normal) matter in an object much smaller than a galaxy without even requiring weirdly dense objects like neutron stars!

[@steffen5121]

True. How many galaxies are there 100 billion? A trillion?

[@felixpica3875]

Yes, this emptiness struck me more than the rest of the video!

[@stigekalder]

ᛊᛏᛖᚠᚠᛖᚾ ᚹᛁᛞᛗᚨᛁᛖᚱ About 2 trillion in the observable universe

[@TeChNoWC7]

Also shows that solid objects must be insanely more dense than gas. But saying that, if we estimate that the observable universe has say, 50 billion rocky planets (and I’m underestimating to be safe), and a whole lot of asteroids, this cube would have more atoms than that? Crazy.

[@nhatminhtranngoc8940]

10^30 solar mass, mass of observable universe around 10^25 solar mass

[@jaredcastro8862]

I like this format where Brady talks about topics he likes from his point of view. It feels like "The adventures of Brady in numberology field" and it's quite original.

[@Triantalex]

false..

[@fuzzy3932]

As a complete laymen I’ve been watching numberfile for years. Even when discussing topics I have almost no chance of understanding past the very basic high level ideas I still find I get something out of them but it’s videos like these that illustrate the mind-boggling complexity of numbers that I really enjoy. Thanks for all the insight. Keep it up!

[@vivvpprof]

In a few years' time you could've turned from 'laymen' into 'experts'. Or at least laywomen

[@neilgerace355]

4:30 Far out in an uncharted backwater of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy, lies a small, unregarded yellow sun.

[@ElectroNeutrino]

Douglas Adams. Nice.

[@PapaFlammy69]

good moanin' fellow mathematicians

[@ruppsluvkpop]

Your comment 2 hours ago but video uploaded 17 min ago How's it possible Must reply

[@carltonleboss]

Hey

[@Ian.Murray]

@@ruppsluvkpop he paid money to watch early

[@OG_CK2018]

@@ruppsluvkpop He is a member

[@dzspdref]

Is there a printed out version of the actual number result of cubing that/those numbers? Or how many pages of small text would it fill?

[@StGroovy]

Who else thought that giant space cube would make a fine Borg ship?

[@kalpanarms9597]

*3blue1brown, standup maths, singing banana, and Numberphile* posts video on the same day! *Legend*

[@GRBtutorials]

Not a coincidence, though, it’s a collaboration.

[@musik350]

4:16 Parker Square

[@noidea2568]

4:55 That's actually insane. There are billions and billions of galaxies in the universe, and even if you combined them all, they would still weigh less than that cube, which is like 1000 times smaller then the galaxy. That really shows how "empty" the universe is. Yea, galaxies are huge, but the distance between each individual star in that galaxy is also huge.

[@tormodguldvog8405]

This is my favorite Numberphile in a long time! Not that the other videos are bad (they are not!) but these simple, number-oriented stories told by you are so pleasing.

[@IchbinderJesus]

It is kinda humbling to imagine how empty space truly is if that cube, still relatively small compared to the Milky Way, would weigh more than all the atoms in the universe.

[@m4rcos_elx95]

I am brazilian and this Channel and others like periodic videos have help me learn a lot of things at same time I learn english listening. Thanks a lot guys

[@ericfox7021]

I miss the old-school Numberphile videos where they'd just discuss the interesting properties of specific numbers :) More of this please!

[@MarianoRodriguez]

Do it, build it, dominate the galaxy. Let the neighborhood know we mean business.

[@user-dn2bb6ts3u]

The old "Let's talk about the number X" video format.

[@willipuga]

Imagine if someone tried to search for this video later on 😂

[@ceramicsky14]

The Parker square at 4:18 was pure gold

[@ashmanideep6253]

I love the fact how both @Numberphile and @3blue1brown uploaded video on big numbers in same time period and flammable maths had 2nd highest comment in both

[@SylvesterAshcroft88]

The supercomputer found out that number 42, was the meaning of life once again! ;)

[@jdsonical]

numberphile and 3blue1brown both uploading and having some large number in their titles? HELL YEAH

[@TheDhammaHub]

I find that the larger the numbers get, the more interesting properties they have. If you think about it, any Input for a computational problem is also a very large number in binary representation that also encodes an instance of a problem!

[@jeffreylebowski4927]

What?

[@Varksterable]

Just no. The more you look at a number the more interesting it is. Size really doesn't matter here. Is Pi less 'interesting' than 10?

[@richardyork2626]

It's an interesting thought. Personally I think that's just because the higher you go, the more numbers there are, and hence the likelihood of finding a number with more interesting properties is orders of magnitude higher if you go up to, say, 20 digits rather than restricting yourself to 5 digits. But I'm sure if you picked a 20 digit number at random, it would be highly likely to have no interesting properties whatsoever. It's also no longer the case if you stop restricting yourself to integers, for obvious reasons. Pi and the golden ratio are two of the most interesting numbers and they're both very small.

[@alveolate]

@@richardyork2626 going in the train of thought of the OP, clearly he's thinking of integers. and since binary representation is included, a transcendental number like pi/phi would clearly be represented computationally with some formula that can be converted into a long binary string -- i.e. another number.

[@dlevi67]

@@jeffreylebowski4927 Look up "Gödel sentence" (or even better, read "Gödel Escher Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter)

[@TanaBaka]

These are the types of videos I subscribed for. Finally, some quality content.

[@diceblue6817]

2:00 Douglas Adams would be proud

[@deeal5336]

I though this was a video about my grandmothers home phone number in Mexico.

[@DaneliusUK]

The visualisation and narration did it for me. Enjoyed it, thank you.

[@MikeMcCollister]

Just wow! I really enjoy your videos.

[@numberphile]

Thank you - hope you've watched all the ones that came before.

[@walkingwriter4325]

That makes a Borg cube look puny!

[@beta700a]

We need the Parker Cube to solve the missing numbers!

[@VonKraut]

Best video in awhile, really enjoyed this one!

[@eu4um]

This was a (pun intended) stellar video! Very philosophical, very mathy, classic stuff!

[@tomtostadioom5593]

1:26 that font gives me serious nostalgia from when i watched numberphile seven years ago lol

[@marshmelows]

Brady's been filming numberphile videos for so many years he can now host a video all by himself

[@OriginalPiMan]

A correction: If you had a cube of blocks that big it would not be visible from the next galaxy over... Probably. It's difficult to say for sure whether any two objects in the same black hole could see each other. It would definitely be a black hole, and light and time get weird in a black hole.

[@recklessroges]

Some very satisfying and agreeable stamp collecting. Love the galaxy level visualisation.

[@MarianoRodriguez]

When things can get so big it only means that they are also infinitely small from some other point of view. I say each star is a neuron, each galaxy a brain and everything merely a matter of zoom.

[@groopeep]

What’s also amazing about these numbers is their precision. Can you imagine Avagodro’s number as an integer?

[@splodeyferret]

This video blew my mind. I can't wait to show people this!

[@MrGrandpajones]

For some reason makes me think of older, simpler Brady Haran Media Empire™ videos. Just some wood blocks and a bloke trying to teach me math. Maybe it's nostalgia for school? Thanks for creating Brady. Looking forward to the next one.

[@franntsb]

So proud of Brady. After years of listening to the professionals he can finally do a Numberphile video on the topic all by himself!

[@elPatrixf]

I awe of the size of this cube

[@jakefeasey413]

I absolutely love this way of representing these huge numbers!

[@StefanReich]

5:21 "Look at the epicness" - well put, Sir, well put

[@PopeLando]

A brilliant illustration that actually has real meaning in maths and computation. Algorithms that only work on impractically large numbers are called "galactic algorithms", even though the galaxy is microscopically tiny compared to the numbers involved.

[@karlkastor]

I love the visualization! The end reminds my of Brian Cox monologues

[@AmnonSadeh]

very bold of you to represent positive with bright and negative with dark in 2020

[@CorruptPianist]

I love the way you guys highlight how many mysteries are yet to be discovered in mathematics. Growing up I always hated maths, I was more the artsy, explorative type. Turns out mathematics appeals to that side of me as well, I just never dove deep enough.

[@CorruptPianist]

When I started typing this comment, we were still talking about numbers and cubes. The first thing I hear when I come back is "Here's the Milky Way." I adore this channel.

[@Zatmos]

What's the most mind blowing thing in my opinion is that a solid cube smaller than even a percent of the Milky Way in size would still weight more than the observable universe.

[@lordofmorgul]

Were those Parker (square + solar probe) at 4:17?

[@kahisoerickson1059]

Love the Parker's square shirt

[@brendank2197]

I watched your Simon's foundation talk on this and it was very interesting! I first got to know you through hello internet and listened to all 136 episodes in about 6 months. Thanks for all the good work and keep it up!

[@martifingers]

Clear and entertaining - a model exposition.

[@vtron9832]

Both you and 3Blue1Brown posted videos about huge numbers at the same time!

[@jackmojo]

Not sure what "hug numbers" are... I guess numbers need love too?

[@jackbauer322]

Yeah that's a common initiative of the maths youtube community BUT I thought it was a hack xD

[@HITNUT]

@@jackmojo k bro your humour is bigger than this galaxy

[@albertosierraalta3223]

Singing Banana (James Grim) also just upload a video

[@prasunadhikari6054]

Watch james grimes' video to know whats going on.

[@mikerich32]

I did the math(s). If we used the number at the end of the video to make a cube of carbon atoms instead of wooden blocks, it would weigh approximately 3.7 x10^36 kilograms.

[@lyrimetacurl0]

"You might think space is big but that's just peanuts compared to maths."

[@KayvanAbbasi]

This video was great!

[@erikolsen1333]

Love it love the construction

[@4ltrz555]

3b1b and Numberphile definitely planned this.

[@venkateshbabu1504]

Which essentially means matter formation is very huge area of discovery. Some mega structures are mean lower denomination. Three maybe spectrum emisions of structure of three huge objects. Prime spectrum is of importance.

[@MattTheCommenter]

You can't have the NumberPhile channel without a video about a large number

[@verycoldneutronstar]

@numberphile I like how you have 3.41 million subscribers as of now, very close to the figure 3.14

[@bsharpmajorscale]

I never really thought about it until this video and the one Matt Parker one, but I'd have to say my current Mega-Favorite number is 2,147,483,647. I think: assuming it's the point where all the cool/weird game-breaking stuff happens in Minecraft.

[@sandydonaldson4998]

Love it! More Brady's thoughts in stuff.

[@oramusic963]

I guess he is called 'Numberphile' for a reason lol

[@RealCadde]

I think that whenever a negative cube is used, it should cancel out the big cube like antimatter and thus you'd have to represent the big cube in our galaxy as the amount of energy released between the positive and negative cubes annihilating eachother.

[@xenobob2773]

If the pigeon is holding you hostage, blink twice.

[@prashantshukla6018]

I literally love numberphile .

[@Antediluvian137]

numberphilephile

[@alansmithee419]

4:56 It would also form a black hole larger than the observable universe (by several orders of magnitude)

[@anton4875]

Larger as in more massive or more spacious? I think he mentioned that it would be more massive than the observable universe.

[@alansmithee419]

@@anton4875 larger diameter.

[@stephen8479]

In awe at the size of this lad

[@stephen8479]

Absolute unit

[@Sw33tG4mer]

Everybody gansta till Numberphile post one video about a huge number.

[@nO_d3N1AL]

Really liked the visualisation of the size of the cube. I'd really like to see more videos where numbers are shown on a cosmic scale

[@bsatyam]

The density of the wood used to build the megacube is 555.976 Kg/m^3.

[@ShipOfFreaks]

wow, it's easy to forget how thinly spread out all the matter in the universe is. how thin even within a galaxy!

[@wintermutevsneuromancer8299]

this was quite cool - thx

[@IllidanS4]

That sounds like something that could be turned into a sequence. Get the largest ones of the bases, sort them in ascending order, have a sequence of these for every applicable number, and go through the diagonal. I wonder how much that grows.

[@GySgt_USMC_Ret.]

As soon as I can get the song 8675309 / Jenny out of my head, I'll be back to watch the video. Fair winds and following seas to all.

[@nigeldepledge3790]

Having failed to notice the image in the thumbnail, I was wondering if that cube would fit within the observable universe...

[@thivik]

I guess its important, that we start in bradys room to build the big cube. A big cube indeed.

[@muskyoxes]

That number cubed reminded me of estimates of number of atoms in the universe so i thought the cube would be a whole universe big. Its _smallness_ is what's surprising, demonstrating how empty the universe is.

[@spicyy812]

Do a video on the number 3003 and it's connection to the pascal triangle. that would be really interesting!

[@sebastiana.4682]

It’s so cool that mathematicians are allowed to use supercomputers for those kind of problems, but how do they argument to get previous supercomputer time for something like this? Is it useful in any way?

[@Sarika428]

Aliens- what the heck is going on in that galaxy Numberphile- we are representing 3.......

[@piotrmil]

4:17 Parker square spotted Should have dimmed it a bit more :D

[@numberphile]

And a Parker Solar Probe, I hope you noted!

[@adub303]

@@numberphile Love it! But what does Mrs. Parker/Dr. Green think? x`-D

[@overestimatedforesight]

That was really clever to use sunlight/shadow on the blocks to indicate positive/negative numbers.

[@cipherxen2]

I love mathematicians. They always solve the problems I never had.

[@ElytrCSGO]

same

[@frizider2]

I loved this video. As others have said, felt like a ride to the past moment

[@poppymcpeake9961]

is no one going to talk about the parker square in the bottom left at 4:18?

[@poppymcpeake9961]

apparently so

[@nilen]

THIS IS SO EPIC NUMBERPHILE!

[@DoDoENT]

Showing the cube in a galaxy immediately reminded me of The Borg

[@MrPlutarch]

i am awed, thank you

[@JamesSpeiser]

dude awesome video!

[@jimi02468]

Fun fact: pi^pi^pi^pi could be an integer.

[@Joffrerap]

What do you mean it could be? It hasn't been proven otherwise?

[@yaboi6851]

don't you mean rational instead of integer? integers are whole numbers

[@advaykumar9726]

Never as product of irrational can never be a rational

[@jimi02468]

@@Joffrerap "Could be" = "Hasn't been proven otherwise"

[@2funky4u88]

@@advaykumar9726 Wrong. sqrt(2) is irrational and clearly sqrt(2)*sqrt(2)=2.

[@otakuribo]

4:47 *Resistance is futile*