6 minutes of Fascinating Math

[@HelloIAmAnExist]

Newcombs paradox is a really interesting problem. Here's my solution to it: The way I understand it, the argument for choosing A+B is based on game theory (not the channel lol) and the idea that whatever is in B doesn't matter, because you might as well take an extra 1,000 dollars. The reason that's incorrect, is because you're assuming there's 4 options (0 dollars, 1k dollars, 1M dollars, and 1,001k dollars) when there's only really 2 (1k or 1M) because assuming that the predictor is perfect means you can't make a decision that "tricks" it. Technically, you can't change the past, and what the predictor put in each box. But practically, you sort of can. If you choose B, then you get 1M. Not 1M/0, because that implies that there's random chance in this completely deterministic problem. Likewise, if you choose A+B, there's only 1 possible result you can get, which is 1k. You can't get 1M from the B box, because that would mean the predictor was wrong, which he can't be. I think this kind of resembles the idea of a superposition which is pretty neat. Also the concept of free will being an illusion. I really like this problem. I'm not sure if I managed to explain myself the way it's explained in my head, but this is what I view as the objectively correct answer. If anyone thinks something different I'd be glad to argue in the replies. Edit: ok, I think I found a better way to put it: The flaw with the reasoning of: "well I took the 1M and I got it, but I know for certain that A had an extra 1k, so why didn't I just take that as well?" is the idea that you could have chosen differently and gotten the same result with B because it was predetermined what the box had. It's like the A box has a sensor that automatically removes everything in the B box, even though it's seemingly just a free 1k. It didn't have an actual sensor, but it might as well had had one, because the A box is pretty much a trap. B's contents are what I like to call "yet to be predetermined". You can't actively change the past, but the people in the past act differently based on the future, which is your present. Yeah wow this is really hard to put into words Did anyone understand a single thing I said

[@h.hristov]

The content in box B becomes $0 if and only if you pick both boxes. Since the predictor is said to always be reliable, choosing just box B would always get you $1,000,000.

[@LavaXYZ]

Mathematical representation: a+b=1000 a= 1000 b= 1000000 b> (a) or (a+b) You pick

[@charles-andrelefebvre1154]

The real question is: what is the argument for choose both boxes. I'm part of the people that think the others are just silly for refusing 999 000$

[@aaanimations_]

yes

[@HhHh-wd7mi]

but i bet they'll never expect me to take only box A

[@LaugeHeiberg]

On the first one, an interesting observation: Take 4+5+6 = 7+8 If you take out the first number, 4, and then split it evenly to the other numbers, 5 and 6, you get whats on the other side, 7+8. Another (barebones) example: 16+17+18+19+20 = 21+22+23+24 16/4 = 4 (17+4)+(18+4)+(19+4)+(20+4) = 21+22+23+24 21+22+23+24 = 21+22+23+24

[@blacklight683]

yea i was thinking about that he literally just deleted 1 number and spread it

[@arandomperson6584]

but how does it work

[@shauryagupta3644]

Dude it's literally the same thing as adding the number.. you are adding 4 + 4 + 4 +4 to each of the other numbers, which is the same as adding 16 to the LHS

[@shauryagupta3644]

@@arandomperson6584 Instead of 4 + 5 + 6, we are doing (5+2) + (6+2) which is exactly the same as 4 + 5 + 6

[@arandomperson6584]

@@shauryagupta3644 I know but why does that patten appears only in this specific case which is 1+2=3 4+5+6=7+8 and so on

[@TheOne_6]

hold on why is this channel SO UNDERRATED

[@prawtism]

when his voice becomes lower after a new mic or increased confidence, ez 1M subs

[@LaugeHeiberg]

​@@prawtismA low voice is quiet, not deep. Think "She spoke in a low voice, as not to be heard by the guards" "A deeper voice" is what you're looking for.. English is dumb

[@Kreepix]

stfu who asked

[@pay-2win]

bc 1blue3brown and other math channels are better

[@rmjstrikecat]

Wait yeah I just noticed he only has 25K that’s crazy

[@Faroshkas]

I simply love this video, and I don't think word can describe how much. This is the first time I've seen a math video structured like this before, and it's fascinating. Thank you for this!

[@stepexgd6628]

He just throws factoids at you instead of showing any interesting relations, that's why the video is structured the way it is.

[@Faroshkas]

@@stepexgd6628 Well, yes. But it's an interesting contrast to other math videos. A nice break from other very technical or very specific videos.

[@Faroshkas]

@Moon_Crescent2341OO 🍔burger

[@dheerendrayadav8335]

3:04 the explanation to this: Sum of first n odd numbers in n², so the fraction will become n²/((2n)²-n²) which is n²/3n² thats why it always results in 1/3

[@pepefrogic3034]

Undulating squares and cubes are easy to completely list. It is not that only 4 have been found and one cube, it is that only 4 EXIST (in base 10) and that is fairly easy to prove/check (modular arithmetic mod 100000 say)

[@otherodd]

Wait, really?!

[@jussari7960]

The only proof I could find was David Moews one, and thats only for undulating squares (and not "fairly easy" by my standards :D) I couldn't find any proofs for cubes so are you sure that's right?

[@muhamadabdulah5855]

😊

[@muhamadabdulah5855]

😊😊😊😊😊😊

[@OrbitTheSun]

If I open box B and it is empty, I open box A and get at least $1000. Predictor was right that I would open two boxes. If box B contains $1 million, I don't open box A, so the predictor is correct again.

[@tweer64]

But now that you know that box B contains 1,000,000 you can then take box a after that.

[@quentind1924]

*And then after you see the million in box B, you also take box A because it’s free 1000$* 😀 Be honest. Imagine yourself in front of both boxes, do you really believe that you wouldn’t take box A right after ?

[@fullestegg]

okay but if you opened box b and it does infact contain 1milion, then why not open box a and get 1000 more?

[@Smallpriest]

The problem with the last question is that "reliable predictor" is vague and not clearly explained. The difference in answers just depends on how someone interprets what "reliable predictor" means to them. This is yet another example of a question being more of a language problem than a math problem

[@Smallpriest]

Btw if anyone is wondering what my view is, I think that you can basically ignore the "reliable predictor", because we are told that "people seem to divide almost evenly on the problem", so how can you possibly reliably predict something that is close to a 50/50. Now the problem becomes much easier and we can see that taking both boxes is optimal as it grants us an additional $1000 no matter what the "reliable predictor" does.

[@dededededededewedq]

​@javinleong3433 i don't think i understood the problem. Isn't taking box b just better? Because the predictor will have predicted that you will have taken it. And so there is a million dollars in there ??

[@AS-mw6pw]

⁠@@Smallpriestyes I agree with you. If the predictor can literally see the future, then you choose box B. If the predictor can’t see the future then you pick both boxes. There’s nothing profound about it. Just intentionally vague language which disguises the fact that it’s merely a paradox that only arises due to the use of time travel/seeing into the future. And well… of course there’s going to be paradoxes with time travel. Someone tell me what I’m missing here

[@landsgevaer]

My answer: if the predictor is reliable, then the world must be deterministic, and then you don't have any free choice when "making your decision". Just pick what you pick and be content with what you have because there is no alternative in which you could have picked differently. (Or, opposite, if you have a free choice, then indeed a reliable predictor cannot exist; but I don't believe in free will. 😉)

[@AdamR-b7y]

A good way to think of the "reliable predictor" is a superintelligent ai that has analysed your every move in your entire life up until that point and has then made a prediction from that. Raises the stakes in my opinion.

[@Birch123-z9p]

For undulating numbers, isn’t it exclusive to base 10. If you worked in binary you would have way more and hexadecimal way less and it wouldn’t be the same numbers as in base 10. As such what is the correlation between undulating numbers and their base

[@The_Commandblock]

its a shame that this only has 270 views

[@tfjhhguyft]

You mean 51k views

[@The_Commandblock]

@@tfjhhguyft Comment + Time = Outdated xd

[@rociochave1066]

@@The_Commandblock Just set time your a command block duhhhhhh

[@conniejong983]

U mean 260,513 views?

[@jackyy3]

270k!!

[@kikivoorburg]

The way I see it, Newcomb’s paradox is just a malformed question regarding free will. If free will exists, then there is no such thing as an “accurate predictor”. Maybe a very-nearly-accurate one, but never a perfectly accurate one because someone could just _choose_ not to follow its prediction. In that case we have 4 options (ignoring the “take only A” answer, which is funny but rather obviously never the best) - Predictor guesses taking both and you take both => $1000. - Predictor guessed taking both and you take only B => $0. - Predictor guesses taking only B and you take both => $1001000. - Predictor guesses taking only B and you take only B => $1000000. Notice how out of these 4 cases, it’s always better to take both boxes regardless of what the predictor guessed. Hence why that’s some people’s “obvious” answer. By contrast, let’s take the predictor being 100% accurate as a definite truth, thereby requiring free will to be false. In that case we have only two options (again ignoring “take only A”): - You take only B => $1M - You take both => $1000 We don’t even need to mention the predictor because it’s always right and so only your action is relevant. In this case there’s no good answer to “what do you do?” because if free will is a myth, you don’t know what you do until it happens. The best you can say is “I hope I take only B” because that would mean $1M. So, the paradox is actually the incompatibility between determinism and free will. If you lean to the side of free will being real, you should take both. If you lean to the side of determinism, you should hope you take only B. What would I do in a real situation? Well, depends on context. I don’t believe in free will, but also know that we (humanity) definitely do not have a 100% accurate predictor. So if a human came to me with this situation, I’d take both boxes knowing the predictor isn’t flawless. If, however, I was somehow given this prompt in a context where it’s plausible that there is a 100% accurate predictor, I’d only take B. I don’t expect to ever be in the latter situation, so devoid of context I’d take both. TL;DR: Free will is incompatible with a perfect predictor. IRL we don’t have perfect predictors, so it’s best to just take both unless there’s a good reason to think the predictor involved is perfect (in which case you better hope you take only B!) Edit: fixed ‘a “accurate predictor”’ to ‘an “accurate predictor”’.

[@NbNgMOD]

Fun fact, on TI30xs calculator 69! Is the biggest factorial before overflow error and 70! Is the least amount of characters needed for overflow error

[@tomfooIeryz]

Found this out myself while messing with factorials

[@joinfortherapy6470]

the voice is so soothing, i can use this as sleeping music

[@MiG-25IsGOAT]

This channel deserves at least a million subs. the quality is insane for not even 100k

[@goingoutsad]

“Hey babe, wanna 264^2?”💀💀

[@Nyamkanymzaya]

What?

[@iiDuskyyy]

Dirty joke

[@yahyamohammed9325]

What is 264^2

[@Nyamkanymzaya]

@@yahyamohammed9325 yeah

[@Nyamkanymzaya]

@@yahyamohammed9325 it’s 69696

[@gm_construct_13_betaexplor38]

i love it when luigi explains math to me for 6 minutes

[@myguy4302]

This channel is about to blow up

[@chrisg3030]

1:32 "This is a regular pentagon with one thousand sides" Gosh

[@My2048TilesChannel]

*Polygon*

[@Swagpion]

0:51 another fun fact about 11. When you square a string of 1s, you get a number which goes up, and then goes down, and it goes up to the number equal to the number of 1s you started with (if it goes above your base, you have to carry over the extra bits). So 1111^2=1234321

[@The-EJ-Factor]

2:24 only 4 discovered? Or was it proven there can’t be another factorion

[@Rifat91804]

I guess there is more

[@Velu0]

I really hope this will get more recognition in the future

[@ganrimmonim]

Great video. Apart from 8^3 of the very few numbers who have the property that the sum of its cube is equal to it are all next to each other. Why is eight an exception?

[@arrun5125]

3blue1brown vibes :)

[@ÞeSheep1]

1blue3brown

[@TheOne_6]

​@@ÞeSheep12blue3brown

[@Chomta]

​@@TheOne_60blue4brown

[@bblunder]

​@@Chomta3orange1apple

[@ricsix2.0]

Great video! The bloopers are also funny like "a regular pentagon with 1000 sides"

[@user-xy5yg6se1k]

2:14 and 2:42 do you mean these are all we have found so far or has it been proven that there cannot be any more of these?

[@angelruiz109]

One of my favorite math facts is the magic number 9, times any number you can find, it always comes back to 9 (i.e. adding the sum of the digits)

[@marie-juhanna1281]

Thats very cool, but also easy to explain. This happens because 9 is exactly one less than 10. So if we are adding, the ones digit decreases exactly one and the tens digit increases exactly one. So the sum of the digits stays the same. If we are going to another base this property remains for the digit one less than the base number. In base 8, if you are adding to 7s, the result is 16 and another 7 gives you 25, so the sum of the digits is also always 7.

[@Kuwustilam]

Honestly if i hadnt checked the comments i thought you'd have hundreds of thousands of subscribers, you deserve WAY more 🎉❤

[@christoph2450]

Nice video and great channel - thanks for this brilliant content!

[@rogerkearns8094]

I think Newcomb's paradox depends upon one's personal circumstances, within a spectrum. For example, at one end, your well being wholly depends upon your receiving at least a thousand instantly, in which case take both boxes. Somewhat towards the other end an extra thousand means nothing to you, so you might just as well take box B and go for the million. At the far end even a million makes no difference, so walk away - or better, perhaps, flip a coin to choose and donate any gain to charity.

[@HelloIAmAnExist]

Well, you aren't wrong, but also, I don't think that's what the paradox is about. What you're doing is measuring the resulted happiness out of 2 possible situations: 1. Getting 1,000 dollars guaranteed 2. Maybe getting more, maybe getting nothing. To begin with, in this type of theoretical game, usually when each option results in a certain payout, the money isn't meant to be taken literally, and is just a means of quantifying what options are preferred and to what extent. Clearly, a million dollars is better than a thousand, both of which are better than nothing. The given amounts were probably picked semi-arbitrarily. Secondly, you're missing the whole point of the puzzle, which is the predictor. You're just viewing it as a certain probability. Sure, in the real world, if I knew there was some logic-puzzle-esque giveaway, my answer would likely be highly influenced by the factors you mentioned, regardless of what I think the solution to this riddle might be. But in the highly idealized theoretical world, the question is only meant to test your thinking, and no money is involved.

[@rogerkearns8094]

@@HelloIAmAnExist Great response - I do know that I'm missing the mark, somewhat. However, my difficulty is that I cannot believe in the perfect predictor; to me, therefore, the situation cannot exist and any perceived paradox is illusory. Even the puzzle itself doesn't really seem to believe what it claims, inviting us, as it does, to try to catch the perfect predictor out. Cheers :)

[@s1lv3rfir3]

huh? either you get $1000 or you get $1000000. this is very simple.

[@rubber4943]

Its a paradox = unsolvable gl

[@landsgevaer]

@@s1lv3rfir3 But once you have to pick your box B, the boxes are filled. So why not change your mind only then and also take the extra 1000 from box A? Or phrased differently, once you have taken your million from box B using your strategy, could you then also just grab the 1000 from box A, if allowed to? (That is the counterargument at least.)

[@tzbq]

for some reason i took the time and calculated the first one, and for any length of n the first sequence will start in (n-1)^2

[@AzatKupsuldaev]

3:12, I’ve seen that before and I think it equals e to the i-pi which equals -1.

[@Heregoesnuttin]

I don't know why but the accent makes this so much nicer to listen to

[@My2048TilesChannel]

1:04 The square with a side length of 1 the area is 1

[@debmalyalodh1]

1:28 "The word lenght is misspelled. It's length" - English Teacher

[@ChezburgerLeaf]

Underrated!

[@AgniaxX]

THIS IS AN UNDERRATED CHANNEL

[@l0os176]

With the Newcomb's Paradox, it seems like a 50-50 shot for whether Box B will contain anything, which can't be altered by us in any way, no matter what we chose. Why not always chose both boxes then? Does our selection have to line up with the predictor's prediction for us to be eligible to get any money at all?

[@ArathornPL.]

No, because the predictor is always right. So if you take both, he predicted it already, so you get 1000. If you take B only, he predicted it and you get 1000000

[@changingbluehat]

bro,2k subs and not even 1k views? it was a great video mann!! btw new subs

[@zenjack]

His channel has been exponentially growing now he has 3000 subs and 1.1 thousand views

[@amandacourtney3519]

Now Name a undulating factorion prime cubed number which has a sum of digits equal to the non cubed version

[@brockgrabarski]

12

[@OrbitTheSun]

It is unclear whether one could make one's decision to open box A just after opening box B. It is also unclear whether the player knows what amounts may be deposited in the boxes and whether you can get the total amount or just the contents of the last box opened. It is also unclear in which order the boxes may be opened. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the player knows the predictor's way of thinking and his strategy for the prediction.

[@AMongus-pe3sk]

I don't really know about just math so can u answer thus how does a factorial factor it self? like how big is 5!!

[@peamister2173]

For Newcomb's Paradox, if the predictor predicts that you will choose Box B, it will contain $1,000,000 dollars, which, if they are reliable, means you get $1,000,000 dollars, almost guaranteed. Whereas if you take both you will be almost guaranteed $1,000. You win if you choose Box B and the predictor is correct; where the predictor makes 'highly accurate decisions.' Your odds are pleasing. However, the keyword is 'can.' The predictor >CAN< make highly accurate decisions, but may not choose to. We do not know the motive of the predictor. In this case I would assume the predictor does not want you to make much profit (kind of like gambling) and so will 'predict' that you will choose both boxes every time. In this case whenever you play the only profit you will get is if you choose both, because Box A always contains $1,000. In these circumstances I would choose Box A. But who really knows the identity and motives of the predictor? And when has lots of money really brought happiness? Both Boxes???

[@makcings4764]

Fun fact: if you turn the area of n gon w side length of one into function (call it f(n) ) and took second derivative of it it (f’’(n) and as n approaches infinity the result approaches 1 rad to 1 revolution (= 0.159154943092 Revolution) My case: f(n)=n/(4*tan(pi/n))

[@nucleiii]

4:16 I feel like this cant be right. even if the odds of there being no 9s gets increasingly closer to 100%, there will always be numbers that contain no 9s, even at numbers with tree(3) digits, or any other large number for that matter. infinity * any percentage, even 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% will still be infinity, therefore, this sequence even with all 9s removed, will eventually reach infinity, regardless of the speed at which it gets there.

[@omarcbd8967]

Veritasium used to be my favourite channel for science and math,, until i found this channel.. This is the best channel for math and science! But.... Why is this channel have only 60k subs?? People, subscribe

[@fimi_]

"This number is special" "I know"

[@djjdjd470]

Me after sering the thumbnail: Well I was always talking about maths ,you know..

[@truckerbouchard1389]

The best video i have ever whached

[@truckerbouchard1389]

Dam I can’t spell

[@Gil-cq8iu]

Reading 0.43 as zero point forty three instead of zero point four three gave me anxiety

[@pcrolandhu]

why?

[@hungdongminh1100]

there are another type is the number that the divide number that has a remember of 0,sum of them equal the main number

[@mralgorithmscubing]

Ah yes, 'Regular Polygons with side lenght 1'. My favourite sentence. P.S.: This is a joke, this video is epic.

[@Wace-wes]

Its REALLY special

[@stephenbrand5779]

Loved this video. My only suggestion would be to slow down a bit - my brain doesn’t work as quickly these days.

[@JohnWarosa999]

Why’s the last puzzle so controversial? If I understood it correctly, isn’t it just as simple as this: do you want to take both boxes and guarantee to receive $1000, or do you risk it, and pick box B, which will result in a 50/50 where you either receive $0 or $1000000?

[@JohnWarosa999]

it’s just a high risk high reward type of question, no?

[@landsgevaer]

Risk it? The predictor is supposedly reliable, not just flipping a coin.

[@JohnWarosa999]

@@landsgevaer how come? the so called predictor who choses the contains of the boxes, does so before we pick which box to chose? so there's definitely chances involved, no?

[@landsgevaer]

@@JohnWarosa999 No, the perfect predictor supposedly knows the future and knows what you will do. So whatever you chose to do, the prefictor will have acted accordingly. The paradox claims there is no uncertainty or chance. (I didn't make it up; that is the paradox.)

[@JohnWarosa999]

@@landsgevaer if what you've written is true, then I don't think that was presented very well. in the video he says that the predictor has already chosen his prediction, and there's no info about him being able to see the future. but let's say you're right, then what's the point with the puzzle?

[@Phoenix51291]

the predictor paradox is just the grandfather paradox phrased a different way

[@th1v5]

The Predictor knows the type of decision you will make. He knows that I would play it safe, so I'd pick A, but he knows I'd try to trick him by picking B, but he knows I'd pick B and I know he knows so I'd pick A... It's kind of a paradox, but you can just escape it by picking the safe option of A.

[@mrhangertv1829]

2:15 There is also a loop of 3 that includes 169, 363601 and 1454

[@Carm744hr7]

Bro thinks he's 3b3b💀 Great video

[@mausengonmned-5258]

thank you for this

[@oxidine2968]

2:45 also a loop like 19 = 6 8 5 9 and 28 = 2 1 9 5 2 and 19

[@RajSingh-ln1mn]

The thumbnail had me 😅

[@DJCheese77]

KZbin really showed this to me at 6:35am lol

[@unclesmrgol]

Choose a base not equal to 10, and then look for undulating numbers.

[@animelover-jk7dr]

It's a 50/50 chance to get 1000000 or nothing if you choose just box B It's a 50/50 chance to get 1001000 or 1000 if you choose both boxes So statistically speaking choosing both boxes gives you a higher yield

[@Vedansh2308]

I respectfully award you with GuineaPig book of world records for being the most fascinating but underrated channel for 2024..

[@crewrangergaming9582]

that's my credit card pin 💀💀

[@Satie84]

1:21 (with side lenght 1) its length not lenght

[@joopysalem16]

Nobody noticed lenght at 1:19?

[@stepexgd6628]

I'm curious about the first problem you've shown. How do you formalize this series of sums, and how do you prove your claim? You don't seem to formalize anything or show interesting relationships, which could really help with the entertainment value of this video. Update: I managed to find a proof all by myself. It's not that hard if you know about Euler's summation formula, and it probably wouldn't take over five minutes of runtime.

[@kitkatkk2]

*points* hello friend person

[@stepexgd6628]

Hiiii!

[@Carusme]

great video

[@ashwadhwani]

I wanted 9 minutes

[@davidhopkins6946]

I would take box B only. Even if I opened it and found it contained no money at least I wasn't trying to be greedy. Besides, that would be a good dose of karma for the predictor, having misjudged me as out for all I can get, when I'm really not.

[@Yeshuael_GD]

lenght?

[@REHANLUHAR1210]

1:22

[@a-k-mosa]

My argument for choosing both boxes is that a perfect predictor doesn't exist. Just like you can't change the past, you also can't predict the future. Let me put it this way. Lets assume that a perfect predictor does in fact exist and that he can see a snapshot of the future based on current events. Lets also assume that the player is also a perfect predictor that will always make the best possible move. If the player decides to go for only box B the predictor will put 1M dollars in it, which means that now the player should take both boxes, but then the predictor would remove the 1M, so the player changes his choice to box B again. This will go on in an infinite loop. This all arises from the fact that we assumed that a perfect predictor can exist, but he can't. So the most logical choice is to choose both boxes.

[@l4637]

Two couples are enjoying ONE LEFT 6- CAMERAMAN 🌚

[@codeouter]

One thing that I have noticed is that the squares of three often count upto 9 and sometimes 18, for an example, 3 to the 4 = 81, 8+1=9

[@EthanWarTheYT]

3^x (assuming x is an integer greater than 0) will always be a multiple of 3, and this rule goes for all multiples of 3. so yeah

[@riteshtewari7290]

5:19 I think I can't be infinity as repetition is allowed

[@Fuloofus]

as im watching this video it had exactly 69696 views

[@Y_T-x1v]

How

[@JoeBrowning-n9k]

Nice.

[@sambhavmedical4933]

Teach me more!😊

[@pcrolandhu]

The harmonic series one can't be right. If you remove numbers from a series that contains 9s, you still get infinite parts, so the sum of them also have to diverge to infinity.

[@quentind1924]

1+½+¼+⅛+...=2, not infinity. So your logic doesn’t work Same for 1+(1/10)+(1/100)+(1/1000)... that equals 1.111111...

[@sukruteker4539]

1:17 you misspelled the word length as lenght

[@MrConverse]

*1:30, polygon.

[@michaellatsky]

The video should be titled "6 Minutes of Fascinating Base 10 Coincidences." This video isn't generally focused on "math"; it's specifically centered around base 10.

[@cloudyfromtpotreal]

That's still... math. And 90% of the people watching this aren't math majors. They probably don't care about the specifics of that

[@RobloxPlayZSimulatorS]

god:you did VERY bad deeds, go to 1134 person: wheres 1134? god: *hands person calculator* person: NOOOOOOOO

[@littletimmygotburnedinafire]

the thumbnail made me wonder

[@lol-hy4mk]

I mean he already decided on what's in box b, so might as well take both.

[@Konnr]

my favorite number is 264²

[@spoon_s3]

Now the important problem is to prove or disprove that there are only that much special numbers

[@landsgevaer]

The number of special (positive integer) numbers cannot be finite, because if it were then there would be a smallest non-special number and that in itself would be quite special...

[@thechesschannel7270]

The thumbnail bro 💀 Ofc its special 💀

[@omaisajalil7474]

"Regular Polygons with side *lenght* 1"

[@ashkenaze]

I will choose box-B, of course, the predictor has already accurately predicted me to earn 1M😂 UNLESS instead of a mere 1K, box-A contains schroedinger's cat; in that case, I would smashed it with Thor's hammer (provided I was worthy to wield it, otherwise I lend Hulk's arm instead). Damn! I've just written 3 insteads haven't I?

[@kruje314]

'lenght'

[@Lol-l2u1y]

Big Number Abbreviations for you to use: K = Thousand M = Million B = Billion T = Trillion Q = Quadrillion q = Quintillion S = Sextillion s = Septillion O = Octillion N = Nonillion D = Decillion

[@btecman_]

isnt newcombs paradox just 1000 or ~50% chance of 1000000

[@landsgevaer]

The predictor doesn't flip a coin. He supposedly reliably knows.

[@R.F.9847]

The top number in a fraction is called the numerator, not a nominator.

[@arthurau67]

Nice

[@fadilnurwahid537]

Math before bedtime

[@ekaeka-q8k]

1 side shape more look like a circle than infinity

[@RoseMorris-lj9vc]

How do u pick numbers in the lottery 🤓🤔