A new type of mathematics: David Dalrymple at TEDxMontreal

Accepted to MIT graduate school at 14 years old - the youngest ever - David Dalrymple will share his deep insight into the future of mathematics.
About TEDx, x = independently organized event.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

[@vitakyo982]

I've been waiting for what these new type of mathematics are , and i'm still waiting , but the video is over ...

[@rachaelbrimhall5208]

For those of you saying his talk wasn't about the title- it totally was! He is saying that, in a similar manner as looking at the planets' movement before we understood the math behind them was, we are seeing something similar with the human brain now. You could say his talk was a hypothesis based off of what he is seeing for something that might come out of what he is studying- a new mathematics that our brain uses that we haven't yet qualified.

[@thelastcipher9135]

basically, he's saying that the next big mathematics since the discovery of calculus can be found by studying the brain because of the similar complexity of celestial motion in the ancient times and the brain in modern times.

[@dearlm]

He had nothing to present. If you look at artificial intelligence now and compare it to 40 so years ago it has improved using the same mathematics.

[@XXcreeps]

Sounds like he only just learned about matrices. Its not new math, just math with grids of numbers and slightly different rules. Its also how we calculate higher than 3 dimensions, as well as that "the brain works on 11 diminsions. Its not that its 11 dimensional, just that it has the same number of "dimensions" (basically rows in the grid) as when you use a matrix to simulate 11 diminsions.

[@SiriusGraves]

still waiting for the new type of math

[@123lowp]

I think this dude was in my classes back in the early 2000s at UMBC. I remember a young kid that was around 10 years old in my class and thought "WTF!??"

[@velllllll]

That was brilliant and it seems almost none in the comment section got it.

[@lishlash3749]

That word on top of your slide, "homeostasis", should have clued you in to the branch of mathematics you're groping for. It's called Feedback Control Theory and it was developed in the World War II era. Post-war developments led to the field of "cybernetics", the precursor to the current age of artificial intelligence.

[@metalhead375]

I felt like I was falling down a flight of stairs in slow motion in a barn full of fedora wearing spiders while watching this.

[@hardik1993ful]

Title of this video is misleading..

[@sajjadpanahi2736]

That branch of knowledge is Alchemy.

[@ddorman365]

Thank you Canada for the love, you know I love you back:), WoW David, those were very kind words you chose, Thank you, I am honored that you considered me a influence in your understanding of everything, I look forward to working on any thing that is of interest to you and your research, good luck, peace and love, Doug.

[@amilahansen8435]

I assumed comments would be less objective and more inquisitive but alas humans have no future insight again... Go for it David! Neurology is a 1000 page book with most blank pages. I look forward to following your work :)

[@ericphu7812]

wow did you guys really miss the idea about the speech, the meaning of the title "new type of mathematic" is a new approach of solving problems

[@wheelieblind]

I think the big red circle is just so that the people know how much room they have to stand in before the camera guy has to shift the camera over.

[@blechtic]

They really should have let this guy pee before the talk.

[@dominic2446]

why?

[@yamenarhim9336]

because he jiggle a lot

[@badlandskid]

Lol

[@naashiirisartar9576]

obviously you didn't understand what it was about......but go on believe you're super brained..............don't forget to eat your McDo extra large.........

[@criticallook1352]

+blechtic He could pee in his har. :

[@itzshoulderific]

This is awesome dude. Ahead of its time... golden brother. Coming from an engineer this sounds and I know its right on the money

[@sirretardation8413]

Do you still think it was on the money

[@abevan71]

Previous pioneers would be proud that we can share information like this. If only this was main-stream TV!

[@keniangervo8417]

Over 50% watched now and not a single drop of mathematics. The title is misleading! Not a bad speech but he's really stating obvious things.

[@Andrewlohbihler]

I was hoping to see some "New math" as the title suggests, but instead it was a blank page that someone has to write. So much for David's insight here. Some suggest that the brain is holographic by nature, so maybe this is the new math we are looking for.

[@kobayashimaru8114]

+Andrew Lohbihler Same here. I was hoping to catch a glimpse of some new concept. Instead we got a vague promise of some hypothetical new paradigm in math that is as yet unexplained. Not saying he doesn't know what he's talking about but it would've been nice to hear some real details.

[@CzechRiot]

Let me explain things better, what happens is that when th

[@jonathanbush6197]

But what ab

[@fothgil]

Excellent presentation which presents an absolutely fundamental concept about how math has developed and how it may evolve. How and what we can actually observe in Nature influences the level of math we perform. (Creativity and imagination is obviously a must..I hope not to offend any pure mathematicians). He points out that our level of scientific inquiries have provided new mathematical insights through advances in technology (and vice versa). I believe this was the most concise impression possible regarding the nature of math (regardless whether you believe math is created or discovered). This talk provides the audience with a sample of the complexity surrounding the development of mathematics. IMO his points are definitely relevant to the future of mathematics. Thank you for your talk!!

[@Zulu369]

Instead of what is said here at 5:25 (future affecting the present, brain travelling back in time), I would rather say that the brain is doing some kind of pattern matching based on action-reaction sets already stored from past experiences. A baby or youngster who has little or no life experience would not be able to react the same. It's also the same for a person who moves to a different environment in a different culture.

[@MrBeiragua]

He kind of said what you said. When he talked about a multidimensional manifold and all. Also, when he said that current theoretical approxes to imitate the brains future vision, namely neural networks, look too complicated to be right, like epicycles. He wasn't the clearest of the presenters km Ted.

[@joshh6922]

Yea John Locke, tabula rasa. Something of the future is affecting your decision, due to experience from the past. Therefore, long story short..something from the past affected your decision. Nontheless, he might be onto something.

[@jabyers]

+KZbinx This is not what he meant, yes you do use past experiences, but he is specifically talking about your brain imagining the future and how that is difficult to model

[@AustinTexas6thStreet]

It shouldn't be ThaT difficult as it's made out to be here. The "AI" could run multiple simulations based on the continuous steam or incoming info and decide the appropriate response. It is improper to say our brains are "looking into the future" and deciding action based on that. The brain is basically taking in data and comparing that to past experiences and running multiple simulations at ultra high speed to determine the Best course of action to take....and it does this countless times when we, say, take a drink of water. It's not the same as seeing the future...

[@lishlash3749]

+KZbinx What's the point in debating Dalrymple's glib science fiction metaphor? It's not like he put any serious thought into it.

[@PurelocalAustralia]

Sounds like Ross from friends

[@TheMrMxyspptlk]

haters, accept you are bulling the weirdo. He's strange and unreachable to most of you, don't feel intimidated, accept he has sensitivity, understanding and vision much wider than you and stop reassuring yourself diminishing him.

[@legomaster3189]

13.25 i thought that was a perfect example of the true nature of reality. ..it's there my friends. ..

[@Cind3r6600]

Is it just me or does this guy sound like David Schwimmer

[@marcosadelino6990]

I totally agree, I was telling the same thing to my wife in the car today! A new type of math made to navigate through solutions that are no longer scarce, and a new type if scientist that will have to get used to wait for hours for computers to do their thing :)

[@tedbaughn7400]

Application of math to known subject does not mean new, but going forward into this is not only intriguing but is awesome science. Good luck.

[@criticallook1352]

[Q] Did you hear the one about a constipated mathematician? [A] He worked it out with a pencil. :

[@jakenodal4217]

One would have to use existing mathematics to create mathematics so abstract that this form of mathematics could explain the brain and human consciousness. The mathematics of human thinking is coming.

[@kelvinkersey5058]

5 minute talk spun out to infinity

[@srinjoyghosh8229]

Being an economics major, I think what he means in his "looking into the future brain model", is simply put, a type of Backward induction technique which we do in Game theory. But Game theory has one major flaw, just like traditional economics in general, that "All individuals are rational." I think a combination of Game Theory and Behavorial economics along with neuro-science (obviously) is the way forward to understand the mathematics of the brain.

[@kellygwdobbs]

Didn't even begin to watch this as the other comments were stating that no 'new type of maths' can be found here. I suggest look up Vedic Mathematics.

[@legomaster3189]

dude u are awsome..thanking you

[@MClaudeW]

I clicked this because the image in the thumbnail matches my notion of consciousness.

[@LabaneTsilo]

When will you give Professor Oyibo the Nobel prize for GAGUT?

[@CandidDate]

There are a lot of us who don't work at Google, who are following the developments of the forefront of technology. Call them cheerleaders if you will. I do believe we are nearing an AI explosion and I for one am cheering this on. Why? because I care and I have faith in the powers of human scientific understanding. All he says is that the future is unknown, but there will be a future. You can be in the trenches, studying the brain or developing AI firsthand, or you can be on the sidelines as a nerd cheerleader. I like his enthusiasm and I hope we can build a better world through technology. Do we have a choice but to progress?

[@justinmuller6972]

It we could make the human the size of a cube, we would all benefit by the intellectually awesome discussions that would happen. We will be flying cars in a year :) Cmon researchers!

[@senhora3481]

Como já era esperado, poucos entenderam sobre o que ele falou.

[@Drmagiccube1]

In summary, he states that all living entities incorporate their knowledge from the past into a situation to predict the outcome. Solving something requires knowledgeable incorporation of of solutions to previous situations in order to combat this situation. The solution to this situation is then incorporated with other solutions to solve problems within the future.

[@Streamwalker1000]

The continuum problem is outside of our present mathematics. Parallel processing at the quantum level, is where the source of consciousness will be found. By the way David has PLENTY of common sense.

[@amandaclaireon4065]

The source of consciousness is divinity , Christ spoke of it

[@Streamwalker1000]

@@amandaclaireon4065 I agree whole heartedly. :)

[@MichaelBrown-uu9kt]

IMHO a slight misrepresentation of von Neumann's book, which you can get as for Kindle on Amazon and read for yourself. I don't think it's unfinished. But other than that, a great talk! I guess this guy was a child prodigy, but he shows a capacity not just for technical achievement but for deep and profound insights. I hope he is right that a 'calculus' of immensely complex systems awaits discovery, and that it is coming soon.

[@jackpullen3820]

At 5:39 He's talking about Time Symmetric Quantum Mechanics! A destiny wave function which emanates from the future backwards in time to influence the conventional quantum wave function evolving forwards in time...

[@DylanGroves-to6ju]

Well done.

[@dearlm]

I guess MIT didn't teach him that "you give a presentation when you actually have something to present." Anyone who've answered a phone knows they are still having trouble with artificial intelligence but it is getting a lot better than before!

[@dearlm]

Using the same math!

[@tintobrassimo2711]

I felt like Ross of Friends speaking for a while

[@ChrisBrengel]

We are living in the future. -Dalrymple There's a lot of room at the bottom. -Feynman

[@eglintonflats]

There is no future and will never be, there is only now

[@manikshamik]

Amazing.

[@criticallook1352]

SUM, DIFFERENCE, PRODUCT, and QUOTIENT, is the *_aftermath_* of arithmetic. :

[@patton281]

His talk is really a big departure from the title of the actual title of the talk...

[@dannygjk]

+Aditya C Yes, it sounds like merely an intro to what we actually want to hear.

[@AustinTexas6thStreet]

I am SO glad you said that....I was starting to feel like the only one who felt this way. It is a Very misleading title...

[@vadymvashchenko3036]

It's pity but TED is very often about that. That's why our governments need the mass-media - to stupefy people. I wonder whether the abbreviation says: Talking Even Dummies? - Is there something inside those hats except cranial bones? One can't yield a definitive answer. That's why I think we shouldn't be here and be better reading books, discussing issues and solving tasks ourselves - that is much more useful and good for us and the world around. Just yesterday decided to read Galileo Galilei's dialogues on celestial movement and mechanics written in 1632 and 1638 (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems and Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences) and meet a lot of good and deep thoughts there, it's nothing like TED's speeches - the thinker there (Galileo Galilei) is deep, never sold for money and supply the reader with only qualitative ideas and deep discussions. So, back to reading - and good luck to you all :)

[@patton281]

Vadim V, regarding your claim, " the thinker there (Galileo Galilei) is deep, never sold for money and supply the reader with only qualitative ideas and deep discussions..." um... no, Galileo got his books published to be sold... Never mind the fact that some of them were banned... He was what we would call a scientist by profession... it's not surprising that the commodity he sold was his thoughts. And regarding your statement, "That's why I think we shouldn't be here and be better reading books, discussing issues and solving tasks ourselves - that is much more useful and good for us and the world around..." Fool, you're reading a 378 year old book with outdated science and world views... If your claim is that you're reading this because it's interesting to know what a man from 378 years ago thought of the world and mathematics, in his time... sure, it's a great book for that purpose. However, if your claim is that you're trying to make the world better (haha give me a fucking break) then no: this is not a good book to read. There are far better books that reflect our understanding of the world today. For example, The Road to Reality, by Roger Penrose, gives you a fairly detailed look at the current state of physics and how we see the world today. It's a good book, if you actually wanna understand things... and he actually goes over some of the really intense modern mathematics that is utilized. but also, if you're reading that book, you're not a physicist... you're a layman. And so you're not making a contribution to physics anyway... So you're not "making the world better" But I have a feeling that you mentioned what you're reading because you wanna give people a sense that you are more "intellectual" than those who watch Ted Talks (while watching ted talks yourself)... And in that case, let me tell you: nobody is impressed that you can read a book. And under no circumstance should you mistake the quality of the book you're reading with the depth of your understanding of the material. And certainly, the quality of the book you read does not, in any way, reflect your intelligence. You could be reading Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant and nobody would be impressed.

[@vadymvashchenko3036]

+Aditya C, you are right - I'm a layman, but.. a layman having several published works on radiophysics, so, you missed, but never mind - it's o.k. You are right also about one's reading - one should pick up an interesting book to be satisfied. I was reading Galilei because I am interested in the history of physics and science in general and it's better to promote historical interest than to promote something no one even knows what is all about, like in this particular talk. So, your conclusion is actually wrong and a bit out of place - some physicist and other people DO read Galilei and others who worked before them. It's not about having a fashionable fresh look on science - for that you can read a modern course. In some cases it is also questionable what is better. It's rather about comparison, sometimes about respecting your predecessors, analyzing their ideas and worldviews. And also reading (solving tasks, and discussing) is just the way we got knowledge for a couple of last millennia. And still you press keys with letters on them to write your messages - the same Latin (or other language) letters that were printed centuries ago. About my reading preference over the majority of TED talks and telling you now that I have some contributions to physics - it's not about emphasizing my "intellectual" superiority or desire to "give people a sense that you're (i'm) more `intellectual` than those who watch Ted Talks (while watching ted talks yourself)"... You know, when it works - let it be - we all improve by trying to be better or looking at someone who set a good example - a contest is a good way of improving oneself. So, there is nothing bad about intellectual superiority and showing it. One's intellectual power can be defined over the set of practical or theoretical tasks one can solve - it's also not about a number of one's publications - we have a bunch of scientists whose publications' counters are nothing in comparison with their scientific impact. And to know that we still need to read - at least history books. To be a good solver you need to watch (or do whatever you prefer) some better stuff than current TED talks then pick a challenge on your taste, concentrate and solve some tasks your own way - that is the way mathematicians usually work. It's better to think about TED channel content and its scientific value whatever it is... It may be better watching other scientific channels or looking over conference talks, or reading something else on ArXiVe or somewhere else where scientific value do present. At least for now. Also I'm free to express my own opinion as you are. That I am and I was trying to tell you.

[@tr33m00nk]

Mr Willet, it seems, was one of the few who LISTENED to Dalrymple's presentation instead of fixating on only some of the visuals as most of the commentors did. As a neuroscientist, I have always been uncomfortable with the usual hard-nosed math applied to neural functions. Anyone who has listened to and watched the displays of single neuron and brain area activity can tell that a mathematical description of this input-output/stasis system is more than the sum of the hard-nosed math equations used sofar. His analogy to unraveling celestial orbits by going beyond the math of that day is probably correct. Back in the 1970's, someone tried unsuccessfully to apply the math of holography to brain functions; others since have tried to build on that also without much success. A new perspective on the math that is needed is in order - what we got ain't working.

[@basalduat]

Why is this man on TEDx Talks????

[@kamikaze8645]

Why shouldn't he be ? Why aren't you there ? or me ? Why are we here ? What is the purpose of purpose ?

[@allprivelegsofworld]

@@kamikaze8645 the purpose of purpose is to achieve things.

[@WeTravelOnlyByNightAsItsSoHot]

Interesting to note he works at Twitter as a software engineer, I guess to be closest to a random data modeling collection and patterning event horizon. I personally think he should work in the Quantum Computer RAS-RASA. Utilizing his RALA process. Just a thought.

[@michaelrdegroat]

Stand still.

[@dhidhi1000]

I hate to judge but for some reason the way he talks annoys me

[@FraktalPriest]

If that's all you have to say then you sir, bore me.

[@ominousscreech4054]

kidXS what is boring ?

[@kindlin]

I enjoyed the talk, though it's not very profound. We all know the brain is crazy, and crazy things always have lots of crazy math to go along with them, but the talk gets you thinking more holistically on how discovery drives math and math drivers discovery. Math is how we frame the world around us, so there will be at least a new formulation, the brain-formulation, that finally allows us a more fundamental understanding. I'm a little more intrigued that he thinks its going to be a new kind of math, though. Maybe if we discover that quantum effects really are very important in our brain and consciousness, it would be a tool to bridge the two realms, and with the AdS/CFT correspondence, all known phenomenon would be under one theory. That's quite intriguing indeed.

[@trotskill]

He is talking about Quantum Topology Matrix Architectures.....

[@StephenPaulKing]

Logic reasons backwards in time! As we move our parse point forward, the choice depends on what has been previously proven.

[@lionardo]

he is probably referring to these new mathematical fields like transcendental mathematics or the abc Conjecture

[@nirajgupta9982]

What is the connection there?

[@davidwilkie9551]

Like he said, just look at it, because most of what it does, (the brain), is "reflect" and integrate a lifetime of images with the self-centered senses of sound and touch. So the "external" modelling of the world that is inside out relative to a sensation of coherent experience within surroundings, is a hologram of fractal recollection, (it matches perspective), and might be simulated with multiple lasers. A lifetime of human development, to make a mind of superimposed experience, is like when a little bit of talcum dust is put in a clear tube and the sound assembles a node in the middle. ...I would declare that to be what I've understood about String Theory, except that it is "inside out" relative to the descriptions I've read - ..but which is not a problem for Mathematicians (which I am not). Comment Maybe the combination of QM/Tachyons, String Theory and Fractal/Holography in one composite conglomerate of Math will provide jobs for another couple of generations making sense of it all. It's interesting.

[@BP-uq8mw]

So, how long then, before they figure out that the real computational power of the human brain isn't enough to account for our intellect?

[@moiquiregardevideo]

Seriously, about using 2 lasers to probe something complicated in the biological world: It is the amazing discovery of the way rodhopsine work ; that is, how a single photon can trigger an action potential ; how we, mammals and other vertebrates, can see using chemical reaction. A slowly increasing pulse provide an energy level just below the trigger level of the molecule. An ultra short pulse using femto-second laser, is fired at different time, compared to the slow laser pulse. The resulting fluorescence is captured with light sensors. This allowed to discover which part of the molecule is reacting to the photon. It was a specific place where the bond is weaker and the atom start oscillating around its rest position like a child on a swing. The surprise was how fast this occur. Nobody suspected that a single atom in the middle of a molecule could move so fast that it's vibration frequency is in the order of a few hundreds femto-seconds, brief almost as fast as a the periodic oscillation of a middle range infrared photon (in between visible red and microwave). Second surprise : the frequency start at x and slowly increase to about 10x while the intensity decrease. It is comparable to the rotation of a plate trowed on a flat surface. It start will large amplitude wobble and slowly increase its rotation speed until the plate fall and make contact with the surface. Brief, the rodhopsine molecule is in such shape that one of its atom stand in unstable position, ready to vibrate when a single photon hit it. That vibration is surprisingly fast for an actual physical object with mass. Eventually, that unstable portion can create a cascade of reaction, amplified sufficiently to trigger an action potential which is relayed to the brain for image processing. Such sensitive molecule can trigger spontaneously, just by thermal noise. The first image processing happen in the retina. A summation neuron wait to receive a pulse from at least 3 rod or cones inside a given time period before transmitting an action potential to the next layer. This constitute a noise filter which eliminate most of the random noise. When enough cones detect photons in a small area of the visual field, then that area is a majority vote to declare that this area is really bright enough to overcome the random thermal noise. The next layer, still in the retina, does the opposite logiqal operation. It receive the information from the noise cancellation layer and transmit an action potential only if there is a difference between spatially oriented visual field. In other word, it try to increase contrast by reacting to difference in brightness in arbitrary direction. The result of this layer is to draw artificial contour lines around small variation of light intensity. It is like seeing the world like a typical cartoon with thick dark lines around shapes. A similar contrast enhancement is done with the cones. Each of the 3 colors is compared and a winner is decided by neural vote. The result is to create artificially sharp color from the combination of 3 binary value, giving a total of 6 distinct colors. This contrast mechanism explain why, when we look at the rainbow spectrum of a prism, separating white light in an infinite number of frequency, our brain perceive sharp color bands.

[@sparramore]

agree...I think ur on to something

[@lasertuber]

The speaker predicts that a new type of math will be developed to model the brain and I suppose other complex systems. It seems like software algorithms already do that, so I'm not sure if he is adding any new insight(s) here.

[@fizixx]

I'm sure he's great at what he does, but he is sooooooooo boring as a speaker. My GOD, if I had to listen to this in a classroom I'd be asleep.

[@joshv5917]

That's just you. He's not really that boring. I don't think anyone in the audience fell asleep.

[@LordoftheCats]

I know I didn't. I went and made a sandwich while he was pontificating just so I wouldn't doze off.

[@senshtatulo]

At 12:58 "It took a very powerful telescope to look at Jupiter's moons". No, not a "very powerful telescope". Galileo's telescope for looking at Jupiter's moons was a small one, probably hand-held (preserved at the Museo Galileo in Italy), with a power (or magnification) of about 10, which was only 3-4 times more powerful than previous telescopes, which had powers of about 3. Modern hand-held binoculars typically have powers of 7 or 10, with higher powers available.

[@fabriziodutto7508]

I tought it was a serious talk. I cannot get the point, it seems to me jumping between different arguments, seeming unrelated the one with the other. I hope in his mind the whole argument is clearer...

[@Unboundedominion]

Stream Networks (Branching Valley Networks) mathematics? What's the new branch of mathematics called?

[@dagordon1]

need to apply the wadsworth constant twice...

[@phanindrasimha4642]

Was he imitating Ross from Friends at 2.30 - 2.45. He sounds soo similar

[@davidwilkie9551]

Complex new mathematics is quantum chemistry.

[@sonofjesus1464]

thought when he meant new type of math he meant something more exciting than differential equations. Good small talk though

[@Maxander2001]

David Shepler Fun example of completely missing the point! :) :)

[@dlwatib]

Stupid commenters should be banned from using youtube. Thumbs up if you agree.

[@SuperJuiceman11]

Guess you would be the first person banned from you tube

[@DylanGroves-to6ju]

Damn there's a lot of negative comments. Antisemitism? Whatever. This is a great talk.

[@ryannasworthy6870]

All of his brilliant work is undone by the fact he is wearing a fedora.

[@yamenarhim9336]

One day he is wearing a fedora hat and giving a Ted-talk and next day He is destroying the world, don't belittle ppl you Never Know !!!!

[@bonob0123]

So where's the update Hotshot

[@AngelSilva-qn9wh]

hes wearing a fedora. thats dank af. does he watch mlp too?

[@martin36369]

The first picture of orbits is in fact of the retrograde motion of Venus round the Earth & not some old epicycle system. Surely the main area of Mathematics used by the Brain & Holograms is Fourier Transforms

[@nirajgupta9982]

Fourier transforms sounds familiar. Is that something related to the way information is transmitted?

[@martin36369]

It's the same as Harmonic Analysis

[@nirajgupta9982]

Ah, thanks

[@rudemanthony]

Anyone who wears a hat while giving a lecture, especially a fedora, is not to be taken seriously under any circumstance. Stopped the video at 0:59 to make this nonconstructive comment and I'm outskies!

[@viarogmws3445]

Somehow I got lost thinking his talk was about hypnosis instead of maths.

[@LabaneTsilo]

Wasn't this topic discussed as far back as 1950?

[@asmcriminaL]

I only watched half of this.What does this have to do with mathematics??

[@minch333]

I watched the whole thing... Absolutely nothing!

[@yamenarhim9336]

He is trying here (as i understood his talk)to make an analogy between the mistake of making epicycles and complicating the solar system model which turned out to be much simpler (after discovering calculus and applying it to the solar system) ,and the complicated neural networks algorithms that we are building which may have much simpler mathematical structure.

[@elliott8175]

You realise that's basically just Ocam's Razor? An idea well established in the scientific community - and for a long time. I'm sure that he has something to say about this to his colleagues at a bar - but in terms of a presentation, he's said nothing new.

[@jannikheidemann3805]

He predicts a new field of mathematics. So obviously he doesn't present equations because these are yet to be discovered in said field.

[@perimetromatematico8264]

yamen arhim many thanks

[@vjpillay]

Ruth Lawrence got her doctorate in maths at 17 from oxford university in 1989.Wonder if the knowledge of all subjects and master of few the secret to future mathematics? Perhaps 100 scientists collaborate rather than a single genius .

[@lancelotlozano9840]

Okay but what was he trying to talk about??

[@belive-cb8jp]

124875 Binary / Trinary. Prime Topography

[@mrautistic2580]

I call the new math shape math. It's based on infinite repetitive patterns on a surface. The type of patterns that Sir Roger Penrose has experience with. Building those shapes and sending light through the matrix will give you mathematical answers simply by timing the interval of time the light took to travel through.

[@kevinmathewson4272]

Would you mind expanding on your thinking a bit?

[@Drmagiccube1]

Incorporation is a very critical word to what I am speaking about. I do apologize for the mass usage of it as it may seem to be a habitual word in my speech, it is not.

[@abhir7823]

Thankfully Dr Banner didn't turn during the talk

[@ajay191024]

Viewer and commentetors of this video may be interested to learn that many centuries before Galelio,NeWton Indian Maharashi had discovered that earth goes around sun and the distance of atmoshpere.Please see for once the video link I am sending and then decide -Lecture and Q/A session on Rejuvenaring Indian Scientific Heritage - Dr. N. Gopalakrishnan -please write this on you tube and you shall get the video

[@balasubramanians7932]

What is the new kind of mathematics?

[@u1b2]

well that is a new icebreaker, "what is going on in neuroscience?"

[@tellthemman1955]

any one who think they know so much about their department may end up behaving like what this guy did. However, whether you know something or not, mathematics can never be proved wrong. its either you know nothing , or something, but not everything. even lecturers cannot work out all the maths problems in a text book. Even Leibniz and Sir Isaac Newton learnt about calculus in different ways and with different motives, but at the end their evaluation of calculus intersected at one point. that's why this guy even failed to present the '' new type of mathematics he thought he new about''. yes, he might be correct to say new maths, but new mats is still maths. and it will be built upon the maths that already exist.

[@kevinabel2370]

I keep considering we will find a new math and it will not be built on old math. I hope we humans figure it out. Maybe some other animals use it and we can't tell.

[@emilyhenderson4413]

press 5555 to make him fly away

[@Marksman560]

The brain is mathematics. That's why computers become smarter then humans (Artificial Intelligence). Think about image recognition, autonomous driving, World Champion of Go, World Champion of Chess, language translations, sentiment analysis, and many more...

[@wajideu5005]

Pressing 5 repeatedly is more fun than actually watching all this crud.

[@igrewold]

Why do robots have to act like humans or have a human-like AI?! maybe this idea is flawed! * discussing the drinking process 5:01 * besides this Dalrymple is a genius! ;) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dalrymple_%28computer_scientist%29

[@donalso]

This is just the kind of mind that will take mathematics to another level. Maybe good maybe bad. Why be in a rush to judge. You get my vote for now. Just don't pull any Terminator crap on us!! HA HA!!

[@elliotgale470]

lol nice

[@SunnyApples]

Hmm... lots of thumbs down, but few negative comments. Why thumbs down?

[@BB-jp3pj]

his sense of fashion, most likely

[@AustinTexas6thStreet]

His talk does not really have anything to do with the title, leaving many of us to feel misled

[@joelcastellon9129]

genius has my age and could be my professor. FML lol

[@jayz123321]

We all have our strong suit. I could be his teacher on quite a few subjects. And I'm sure you could teach me at least one thing.

[@friedrichdergroe9664]

Where's the math? I don't want the sizzle. Give me the steak already!!!

[@420Tarzan]

Check the walkin paths lol ;) I'm gonna go ahead & make a bet this guy has a 'breakthrough' soon. Wuuuuuuuhhh?