Just a quick error on your side regarding “e” : the number wasn’t actually named after Euler, it just so happened that he was working on several different numbers at that time and named them “a”, “b”, and so on. The fact that the only number that ended up mattering was named “e” is purely coincidental.
@NateOlson-kb4if3 ай бұрын
That's actually really cool
@zecaaabrao36343 ай бұрын
I heard he was only using vowels, and he used a already
@isavenewspapers88903 ай бұрын
While the name "e" did not come from Euler's name, the name "Euler's number" certainly did.
@Yrubully64GD3 ай бұрын
🤓🤓🤓🤓
@General12th2 ай бұрын
@@isavenewspapers8890 Nah, Euler just asked a random name generator to come up with a good name for this number and it popped out "Euler" by sheer coincidence.
@youtubepooppismo52843 ай бұрын
bro said Rayman instead of Riemann
@Tasneem-u5t3 ай бұрын
not a big deal dude 🙃🙃
@matthewb23653 ай бұрын
AI is not good at proper nouns. Also note the weird way is says "Pythagoras."
@hughmiller98393 ай бұрын
That's cause everyone loves Rayman
@ivomichl59643 ай бұрын
also Fibonaki? 😂
@Ranoake3 ай бұрын
AI is reading it..
@yodaas79023 ай бұрын
My favourite constant is 1
@Weskool13 ай бұрын
Fr?😅
@yodaas79023 ай бұрын
@@Weskool1 It's a very special number and pops up everywhere in math, has a lot of interesting properties too
@alphazero3393 ай бұрын
Ok but π=3 e=3 π=e e=2 2=√2 √2=1 sin(x)=x cos(x)=1 ∫f(x)dx=c i≈1
@nlama96633 ай бұрын
nah bro 0 clears
@Mai-oXu3 ай бұрын
What a chad.
@LaussseTheCat3 ай бұрын
The fact he pronounces Pythagoras in multiple ways and doesn't get it right in any way is humorous
@xinpingdonohoe39782 ай бұрын
Many of the names of things were a bit fishy.
@jeremybrennan84733 ай бұрын
Aleph null ^ Aleph null is not equal to Aleph null. Aleph null ^ n = Aleph null where n is finite, but putting Aleph null as an exponent results in a larger infinity. Even 2 ^ Aleph null > Aleph null.
@kvOdratui3 ай бұрын
Not quite. We *think* that this is true, but we don’t know, we can’t prove it.
@mathmachine42663 ай бұрын
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. a^x is O(x^∞). Or, more precisely, lim h→0 (1+hx)^(1/h), making it O(x^(1/h)) in the limiting case as h→0, or O(x^w) in the limiting case as w→∞. If it was closed under even the most rapidly increasing elementary functions, there'd be no practical way to generate aleph 1.
@tollspiller20433 ай бұрын
@@kvOdratui you can quite easily prove that 2 ^ Aleph null > Aleph null, since you can find a bijection between a set of size 2 ^ Aleph null and a set of the cardinality of the real numbers
@sbares3 ай бұрын
@@kvOdratuiNo, it is definitely known that 2^Aleph0 > Aleph0 (by Cantor's theorem). What we do not know (and in a certain sense cannot know) is whether 2^Aleph0 = Aleph1 (continuum hypothesis).
@samuelholbrook61463 ай бұрын
there is too many Alehp Nulls to understand this
@rafakarpinski39613 ай бұрын
Aleph null to the power of aleph null is continuum. (10:43)
@andrewzhang85122 ай бұрын
what
@ue88532 ай бұрын
Wrong. Aleph_0 is the cardinality of the natural numbers. According to Cantor, the continuum is the power set of Aleph_0, or 2^(Aleph_0).
@spaceguy20_123 ай бұрын
6:50 “The exact value of three is not known” jokes on you, it’s 3 11:27 i see france
@1291401632 ай бұрын
6:50 Yeah I did a double take when I heard that line too! I was like “WTF dude? 3 is not a variable! It’s a fixed value, and that value is fixed at 3.”
@elijahhogan3 ай бұрын
Please never pronounce Pythagoras that way again
@Psi_Fan1233 ай бұрын
Agreed
@mathgenius199-i4h2 ай бұрын
Ikr
@MichaelRothwell12 ай бұрын
Thanks for this informative video. Unfortunately, you give the impression that the Ancient Greeks chose the name π for π when in actual fact it was the Welsh mathematician William Jones in 1706, so its use is actually relatively recent.
@unorthodoxpickle7014Ай бұрын
Hmmmm, I thought it was named π because the first letter of the word describing it is π.
@crazydog17503 ай бұрын
1:50 Most insane pronunciation of Pythagoras I've ever heard.
@NotNochos2 ай бұрын
Don’t forget he said “pie-the-gore-ass” 💀
@Pan_Tarhei3 ай бұрын
Nice video as always 😏 Maybe can you make film about types of numbers like natural, surreal, p-adic? 😎
@ThoughtThrill3653 ай бұрын
Thanks for the idea!
@williamduncan74013 ай бұрын
White theme: can't watch at night Dark theme: can watch anytime
@HoseL-b2n2 ай бұрын
LMAO that trump ear i was so supprised for a second 😂😂😂
@versacebroccoli72383 ай бұрын
I didn't know that the square root of every non perfect square is irrational. That's absolutely wild.
@andrewsauer27293 ай бұрын
Yup! It's because every non-integer rational is also not an integer when squared. This is because when a rational is not an integer, that means the denominator has something in its prime factorization that the numerator doesn't, and this doesn't change when squaring, as squaring just adds another copy to the prime factorization of both the numerator and denominator
@AquaphotonYT3 ай бұрын
💀
@drouzicz3 ай бұрын
Same
@ricepaperpencil11953 ай бұрын
@@andrewsauer2729Wow that’s actually really cool! How have I never heard of this
@versacebroccoli72383 ай бұрын
@andrewsaur2729 Thanks for that really clean explanation. I had a little bit of an intuition for that fact that squaring decimal numbers doesn't create integers yesterday. But I'm still astounded by that fact. It seems like something that should have come up in a math class at some point. Like I always thought it was crazy that the square root of two is irrational and right under my nose are all these other irrational square roots.
@gordenfreeman7693 ай бұрын
4:56 change your smoke detector bro
@Qaptyl3 ай бұрын
it sounds too stretched out to be a smoke detector
@ThoughtThrill3653 ай бұрын
i want to but its hard to reach and im kinda lazy 🦥 😂
@dafurious64573 ай бұрын
LOL i didn’t notice that
@isavenewspapers88903 ай бұрын
It feels like 0 is placed strangely late into the video. I'd have thought it'd be one of the first constants you mentioned. Also, I can't believe the number 1 didn't get a section. By the way, I wish you'd have given τ (tau) a mention. I mean, Tau Day was only a few days ago, after all. (For those of you who don't know, the number τ is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius, equal to 2π and approximately 6.28. The use of τ clarifies radian angle measurements; for example, 1/4 turn = τ/4 rad, 1/6 turn = τ/6 rad, and so on.)
@ThoughtThrill3653 ай бұрын
Can you collaborate with me to make videos better? If interested, send me an email 📨
@isavenewspapers88903 ай бұрын
@@ThoughtThrill365 Is there money involved?
@ThoughtThrill3653 ай бұрын
yes, pls send me an email, we will discuss.
@isavenewspapers88903 ай бұрын
@@ThoughtThrill365 What's your email address?
@isavenewspapers88903 ай бұрын
@@ThoughtThrill365Okay, what's your "mailbox", if you know what I'm saying? (KZbin is being ridiculous right now.)
@ice_bear32 ай бұрын
Bro make 80% is greek letter💀💀💀💀
@cmhiekses3 ай бұрын
It’s like this guy actively tried to mispronounce as many names as possible.
@ThoughtThrill3653 ай бұрын
it's the opposite, i actively tried to correctly pronounce.
@okreally66603 ай бұрын
Every physics constant? Or would that take too long
@NaeNzuko2 ай бұрын
Every? Impossible. The most notable ones , yes , but it would still take a long time.
@LithinHariprasad-vg3yr3 ай бұрын
I Love all the constants in Math because i am an Theoretical MATHEMATICIAN. But my most favorite or i could say the most DANGEROUS ones are 0 (Holy) and the ALEHP NULL (sorry hell) !!!!!! Because I am the type of Expert MATHEMATICAIN who don’t really understand MATH and the REALITY (or PHYSICS) R u there with me???
@kiwithemaniaguy2 ай бұрын
did you drank cocaine?
@AS-bc8fg3 ай бұрын
If you're looking for a change of pace , how about every medical/surgical specialty explained
@diegorodrigueznicolas1523 ай бұрын
isn't aleph null ^ aleph null = aleph one?
@nzqarc3 ай бұрын
We don't know, maybe. n^aleph 0 ≥ aleph 1
@justusbecker68982 ай бұрын
@@nzqarc technically, we cannot say whether 2^aleph zero = aleph zero, because that is the continuum hypothesis which is undecidable (neither true nor false) in ZFC
@elliottkrieter46402 ай бұрын
That is what I remember. I believe the book was Asimov on Numbers from a long time ago. But maybe we learned more in the last 40+ years!
@xinpingdonohoe39782 ай бұрын
@@nzqarc we do know, it's whatever we choose it to be. Both options, where it does equal aleph 1 and where it doesn't equal aleph 1, can be consistent, so both can be correct and we can choose the one we want. Like the statement "x³=1 has exactly one solution". We can let it be true, or false, and both work, but we have to live with the consequences. The consequences of making it true is that we must not have complex numbers, and making it false means we must have complex numbers.
@SpeezyBeezАй бұрын
3:40 holy cow trumps ear! wot wot this was released a month ago! whoaa
@Oklahoma-Dreaming2 ай бұрын
Is “i” actually a constant? I always viewed it as an imaginary variable. I very well could be wrong though.
@HuckleberryHim2 ай бұрын
It is a constant because it is a specific number with a specific (albeit imaginary) value. 3i, 4i, etc are also their own numbers. It is just like the imaginary version of "1". Sometimes it is called the imaginary unit, which is maybe more in line with what you are thinking. But it is not a variable.
@hillabwonS2 ай бұрын
"adolf kinkelin" theres 2 things that could go horribly wrong
@dogsteve3 ай бұрын
Can an irrational number be expressed as a ratio of two integers?
@SilentGamer._3 ай бұрын
No, the definition of irrational numbers is the exact opposite of that.
@Weskool13 ай бұрын
This video was actually cool, I learnt a lot, you’re videos in general are interesting
@floppy85683 ай бұрын
1:23 Show me an example of a real number that is neither rational nor irrational!
@diogeneslaertius33652 ай бұрын
Useless.
@jonsters64692 ай бұрын
Bro I can’t get over how many times he mispronounced names and letters 😭😭
@DoxxTheMathGeek3 ай бұрын
My favorite branch of mathematics is probably complex analysis or fractional calculus. :3 But I don't know how much I know about them, I just like them.
@ThewerwolfАй бұрын
PI was known thousands of years earlier before Archimedes and the Greek please mention that, you do not get to make your history
@Theyahavs2 ай бұрын
א null?
@geoffreyfaust3443Ай бұрын
A ton of mispronunciations, including the name of the great Bernhard Riemann.
@maestro38873 ай бұрын
My favorite branch of Mathematics is abstract Algebra and my favorite constants are both e and pi because they share something mysterious which we don't really understand yet. I mean Eulers Identity is not a coincidence.
@kennetteurbano70422 ай бұрын
The first thing you 🎉should always be a good thing to have a positive good 😊 day ahead your 🎉😢vintwz
@Brunolator2 ай бұрын
I think you forgot a few of the constants, such as 1, 2, 3 and there are more I think
@General12th2 ай бұрын
Eh, probably only a couple. I don't think he missed too much by leaving them out.
@Brunolator2 ай бұрын
@@General12th wait but omg he also forgot 0, -1, -2, and maybe a few more in that direction
@ln_cript3 ай бұрын
i like your videos the pronunciation is funny though
@e3lord856Ай бұрын
Right, guys. Quick question: if something is irrational, it has infinite digits. Yes? If it has infinite digits, then all of the possible arrangements of those digits will appear, yes? We know that 314 can appear in pi many times, and 314159265358979323 can also appear in pi, yes? So then if there’s infinite arrangements of these digits, then all of them will appear in an irrational number, yes? So then if they all appear, wouldn’t one possibility be that that number repeats over and over again? So therefore, if you go far enough into an irrational number, then you will find that it repeats and as a result isn’t irrational, yes? Idk if I’m right or not, but I was just thinking about it
@bruhmoment-pn2tzАй бұрын
no well first of all it's unknown whether pi is normal (for all we know it could devolve into 010010001000000100000000001 or whatever) secondly no because 0% probabilistic chance
@Skibidiedger123sigmaАй бұрын
Watching this video for no reason and understanding nothing (only i understand is pi)
@אדםגולובАй бұрын
10:43 is incorrect tho It is literally equal to 2^aleph(0)
@surya942512 ай бұрын
bro the catalan thing graph looks like a bunch of frances
@dapcuber72253 ай бұрын
Are you trying to mispronounce every word? lmao
@theweebrt12 күн бұрын
φ is also the diagonal of a pentagon with side 1
@nathanboettcher64312 ай бұрын
1
@Quintaspoon3 ай бұрын
you forgot 4
@TheOneandOnlyCosmicEevee2 ай бұрын
8:51💀
@mozzi_3 ай бұрын
e isn't named by euler
@DoxxTheMathGeek3 ай бұрын
True :3
@isavenewspapers88903 ай бұрын
It isn't named BY Euler? No, he certainly did name the number "e". If you mean it isn't named AFTER Euler, that's also wrong, since we commonly call it "Euler's number".
@HuckleberryHim2 ай бұрын
@@isavenewspapers8890 Well I think what he meant is that it wasn't called "e" in honor of Euler. Obviously. And that is true.
@KillerBot51002 ай бұрын
0:08 bros got the beep
@LeonardoFiorentino-iv9us2 ай бұрын
unrelated to the vid by why tf did i sit down to watch a nice math video to then get slapped in the face by A 6:40 UNSKIPPABLE ADD ON EVE ONLINE WTF
@anggakaruniawan15 күн бұрын
What is 1+i times sq root of 3
@HuckleberryHim2 ай бұрын
Pi wasn't "discovered" by one guy, Archimedes calculated its value to an impressive degree but that just represents one in a series of refinements on the known value. It was known for centuries before Archimedes by various civilizations that pi is a bit more than 3, since that isn't hard to deduce. It's harder to deduce more precise values, but I wouldn't call that "discovering pi".
@tngdwn83502 ай бұрын
It's Hermann Kinkelin, not Adolf Kinkelin.
@AlexanderCook-cf9cgАй бұрын
12:10 Definitely calculus
@alb64042 ай бұрын
Weird to call it Pythagoras’ number when he was the one claiming it wasn’t irrational 😭😭😭😭
@Ganav_ha_shtihimАй бұрын
א
@Rakesh371873 ай бұрын
√2 is also algebraic which is nice. π for example isn't
@slowpnir2 ай бұрын
10:59 Maybe, aleph-zero is not closed under expotenciation, after all?
@michaelhughes66342 ай бұрын
My favourite is e and the chaos numbers. Although it’s said to see no talk on the monster number from group thoery
@cnidhi0072 ай бұрын
Transcendental
@Mavhawk643 ай бұрын
Is it just me or did bro sometimes change his pronunciations? Bifurcation is an example…
@tataduzy4260Ай бұрын
NOT 10 SECONDS IN AND I HEAR A CEILING BIRD. THE SMOKE DETECTOR IS CRYING IN ANGUISH.
@floppy85683 ай бұрын
11:51 Don't you mispronounce Ramanujan's name! I admire that mathematician!
@puikwanchan6369Ай бұрын
Eulers number is e to the power of i times pi
@cast·iron·skillet·osc20 күн бұрын
Eulers number is just e
@povermani.4_again2 ай бұрын
Who cares if he spelled some of those names wrongly, great vid sir.
@GeniusHenryBaby2 ай бұрын
π I
@TheSheep12 ай бұрын
π
@Dismythed2 ай бұрын
The constant mispronunciations are distracting.
@kurtloko0073 ай бұрын
perimetros means perimeter, not circunference
@isavenewspapers88903 ай бұрын
The perimeter of a circle is its circumference.
@Thiger_3 ай бұрын
These are exactly the same
@TrapLK22 ай бұрын
This is definitely gonna help me with my studying!
@nexonym20082 ай бұрын
Rayman
@darrennew82112 ай бұрын
The golden ratio is not just *an* irrational number. It is the *most* irrational number, in that it is farthest from any rational number that an irrational number can be.
@bruhmoment-pn2tzАй бұрын
this is kinda bogus unless you rigorously define "closeness"
@kcrooks72 ай бұрын
algebra
@ty4nak1322 ай бұрын
my favourite constant is g = pi^2 = e^2 = 9
@dazedheart90062 ай бұрын
Everywhere I look I see Dan ~ Reform ~ .
@Yaromir20083 ай бұрын
What about-1/12?
@isavenewspapers88903 ай бұрын
It's a number, for sure.
@lakshya48762 ай бұрын
@@isavenewspapers8890 I agree
@HuckleberryHim2 ай бұрын
It isn't really a famous constant, it is just an interesting possible solution to certain infinite series. But it's not like it had to be "discovered" as with most of the constants here.
@Weskool13 ай бұрын
I was the first person here but eh
@jerry-yu7yi2 ай бұрын
tau > pi is true in all ways
@Weskool13 ай бұрын
Do you do physics too?
@ThoughtThrill3653 ай бұрын
Yes sir
@kaslon052 ай бұрын
Is that “The Donny” in the golden ratio clip 😂🤯
@justingolden872 ай бұрын
Get this man to 10k subs!
@vtr_monsterextremo5145Ай бұрын
0:13 means perimeter literally
@Chrisoikmath_2 ай бұрын
Where is Euler's number e?
@lukasjetu97762 ай бұрын
8:10 why did you draw the 1
@lebonhommebleu9322 ай бұрын
i ≠ √(-1) because the square root function is not defined over the negative number. However, i² = -1, but also (-i)² = -1.
@xinpingdonohoe39782 ай бұрын
It is defined, but it's not single valued.
@MaxPower-vg4vr3 ай бұрын
If 0 = 0 + 0i then 0D = 0D + 0Di.
@peterchan60823 ай бұрын
Aleph NO? Or is that Aleph-zero or Aleph-nought?
@benyseus63253 ай бұрын
“Aleph Null”
@kruje3142 ай бұрын
Unsigned infinity?
@Danielle-ew1el2 ай бұрын
incredible, well done!
@HughJanus-wv4dm3 ай бұрын
Trigonometry is my jam
@thetexadian2 ай бұрын
the question that bothers me is why is pi an irrational number if it is defined as a ratio. Rational numbers are can be defined as ratios.
@gaza10982 ай бұрын
It is a ratio of two quantities, but one of those quantities is not an integer. To be rational it would need to be a ratio of two integers
@HuckleberryHim2 ай бұрын
It needs to be a ratio of integers, for any given circle if the diameter is an integer, the circumference will be irrational, and vice versa, so their ratio will never be a rational number
@xinpingdonohoe39782 ай бұрын
Every number x can be written as a ratio, like x/1. But rational means we can do it with integers specifically.
@kennetteurbano70422 ай бұрын
0:00 Pi=314
@turnerburger3 ай бұрын
Bruh
@MareykForsythe-pb1qu2 ай бұрын
π = C/d
@ZeRasseru3 ай бұрын
I love probabilities
@avicenoirfanhadiis76242 ай бұрын
thanks
@johannesvanderhorst97783 ай бұрын
i is not *the* square root of -1. It is *a* number that satisfies i^2 = -1. Technically, i can't be distinguished from -i.
@lakshya48762 ай бұрын
Bruh what
@MichaelRothwell12 ай бұрын
And Mathematics and Physicists chose the opposite values, so j=-i. (this is a joke)
@HuckleberryHim2 ай бұрын
i is distinguished from -i in complex numbers very clearly, isn't it? 3+4i and 3-4i aren't the same. Even if you just look at the imaginary number line, like on an Argand plane, obviously -i is just the negative of i, exactly like with real numbers. i-i is also 0, for example.
@xinpingdonohoe39782 ай бұрын
@@HuckleberryHim you misunderstand. Consider the set {i,-i} and select a random ι in that set. Then write some expressions that use i, but replace each i with ι. You won't be able to tell which one you chose. They're functionally identical. sin(z)=(e^(ιz)-e^(-ιz))/(2ι) e^(πι)=-1 ι²=-1 e^(πι/2)=ι ι+(-ι)=0 ι(-ι)=1 lim(z→∞) sec(ι|z|)=0 sin(ιz)=ιsinh(z) Et cetera, et cetera. If you called -i=j and redrew the argand diagram with this in mind, nothing would change. The only reason we know i and -i are not the same is that they add to 0, but are not themselves 0 because they multiply to 1. This is why there's no ordering in the complex plane. i>0 is false, as is i
@hassankhamis773 ай бұрын
I like algebra
@volkser97403 ай бұрын
why are universal constants so small?
@General12th2 ай бұрын
The dimensionless constants in physics aren't always so relatively nicely close to small integers. The fine structure constant is approximately 1/137, while the difference between the predicted vacuum energy and the observed vacuum energy is roughly 10^120. Planck units might be 0 or 1 naturally, but in our system of measurements, their magnitudes can be even more wild. Still, you're right that a lot of numbers in math and science are either integers close to 0 or relatively simple fractions (like 5/3 for turbulence). Is this because we build so much of our math off the simple numbers, so they always keep coming along for the ride? Or is there something fundamental about integers and rationals that's "intrinsic" to logic and the Universe themselves?
@digitig3 ай бұрын
Electrical engineers do *not* use i! (We call it j, because i is already used for electrical current.)
@Sior-person3 ай бұрын
i factorial?!?
@isavenewspapers88903 ай бұрын
That means you use the number i, and you use the symbol i; you just don't use the latter for the former.
@lakshya48762 ай бұрын
Why do you need imaginary numbers in electrical engineering?
@solanaceous2 ай бұрын
I do coding, but we have something called fast fourier transform which is used in acoustics which i guess kinda relates to electrical engineering?? @lakshya4876