Introduction to the Nature of Proof (1 of 3: Prologue)

[@mihailghinea]

I gave almost the exact explination about why math is universal and unique to my 9 years old daughter and she seemed to have understood. Civil engineer, professional poker player and investor here... math shaped me in to what I am today.

[@anajuliadavid1764]

I think what makes mathematics unique it is the bliss to prove our statements and turn them to theorems. No other science can do it, except for mathematics. (I hope to have written it right hahaha english is not my first language.)

[@nathanmclean3018]

Such a great way to introduce the proofs topic, which just quietly I think is one of the harder ones in X2 (or at least it produces some of the hardest exam questions!)

[@subhapackian3349]

Interested and looking forward to see more videos on such topics of mathematics....talking of nature, characteristics, structure, theory concepts of mathematics.....

[@nnamdinwafor8420]

I think mathematics is unique because it reiterates in its applications the concept of dependence and independence as a relationship.

[@particleonazock2246]

So happy that there are no more complex numbers.

[@koungmeng]

Ah, Issac Newton wrote this down one time. He seems legit. xD

[@onarockfloatinginspace8000]

thanks for uploading this Sri! 🙏

[@PauxloE]

4:30 (Voyager 1 is the fastest one.) The Voyagers are not "accelerating for decades". They got some short acceleration when starting from earth, then minor course corrections, and later more acceleration with the gravitational slingshots on several planets, and by this they got a large initial velocity, but since the meeting with Saturn (for Voyager 1) and Neptune (Voyager 2) they are mostly just cruising. They are being slowly decelerated by the sun's gravity - strictly seen that's also acceleration, but it's not increasing their speed relative to earth or sun. Voyager 1 got the title "fastest human made object" right after that slingshot at Saturn. About uniqueness of Mathematics: In Theoretical Computer Science you are using the same tools as in mathematics, namely proofs. (I guess that's why computer science was originally also considered a part of mathematics.)

[@GooogleGoglee]

Solution of the the math square from first row: 2,4,1,3 1,2,3,4 3,1,4,2 4,3,2,1

[@yeeeeeeerp]

The first person is a liar, the second person is telling the truth, and the third person is from the liar tribe. The first person is instantly outed as a liar because if they were telling the truth then they would be a person from the truth-teller tribe, but then their claim wouldn't be a truth anymore. Therefore, person #1 is a liar. Person #2's claim of there being only one truth teller is tricky. In my mind, my first instinct was to think that they were lying. Well, if that was the case then there'd be no truth-tellers. But we know it can't be 0 truth-tellers because of what person #1 said, so it either has to be person #2 is telling the truth or person #3 is a truth teller as well. But wait a minute, if there were two truth tellers, then the statement person #2 said would be a lie, so now it has to be that person #2 is telling the truth. Person #3's silence led to an easier conclusion because we already know from person #2, hailing from the truth-telling tribe, that there is only 1 truth-teller in the meeting. But I'm sure that they are all very nice people 😁

[@mikevilters6237]

Well, if person one was a truth teller, then the statement "we're all liars" must be true, but this can't be true because that would contradict himself, so person one is a liar. If person two is a liar, that would mean that there is no truth teller, and that all the 3 people are lying. But that statement has been said by person one, and he is a liar as we have established earlier. So he must be a truth-teller, and therefore the only truth teller is person 2. That leaves obviously that person 3 must be a liar as well, since there can only be one truth-teller.

[@emaillic]

...and person 3 has no deposition to utter and stand by his tribe of a liar !!

[@AlyxGlide]

It's a silly question. We should look for more information

[@abhinav3478]

@@AlyxGlide why is that? It gave all the necessary information

[@AlyxGlide]

@@abhinav3478​ I wrote this a while ago, it's a bit of a wall of reasons why the statement is loose & that we can't force a state on the unheard party: This preposition is dabbling into hearsay of person 2 obscuring person 3 by no presented evidence beyond an assertion This question is fathomous because: There is no final statement of a remainder, person 3 sharing in person 2 to establish person 2 as the truth-teller in lieu of consent; There is no law here for a remainder, person 3, truth-tellers or liars to argue person 2's state of deception & so person 2 violates the binary statement of only true or false tales. Person 2 abstracts a variable to the observer of person 3 without diverging a succinct answer. The principle history of island people tribes not contrasting themselves does not bestow foresight to person 2 about person 3 nor does the proposition contort person 3 in adherence to person 2. Our gullibility presumes that person 2 allows the principle as self-evident. Person 2's lone assertion is an abstraction that there is a sole truth-teller; We do not have evidence an inquiry of who person 3 is nor a distinction of person 3's tribe, person 2's expression is a claim. An early example of hypothetical claims in place of adjacent conundrum is that person 2 may functionally 'claim', assert that 2 or less people are truth tellers. To educate a true hypothetical distinction here, hypothetic person 2 attesting to person 1, a ludicrous liar is being distinct, is complete & thus self-evident in contrast to than an open figure. Person 2's phrase "Just one of us is a truth-teller" is a unclarified, Person 2 cannot fabricate a binary person 3 because here person 3 can not factually be in a dual state. The tribe of person 3 is true to whomever person 3 is, not person 2. We are left with a true lie or a half truth about person 3 by person 2 & an added contradiction if person 3 is coincidentally also a truth-teller. The record does not argue person 3. We may wish that person 2's abstraction cannot tell a true lie or half truth of an unknown figure however a new inconsistency, a dehiscence to/from the principle would falsely claim that they thus know the conundrum of person 3. Person 2 presents a viability not a verification of person 3. Person 2 may not prove with our given tribes who person 3 is without someone knowing person 3. Truth depends on knowing the state of a possibility of a figure affiliated to an explicit group; *The lack of veracity, the deceiving half truth of person 2's answer are coincidentally true or false equivalencies in a number of different statements given by the logic of person 2. Examples: Person 2 may assert that "just 1 of us is true", "Only 2 of us are true", "Only 1 of us is a liar" while 3 is unverified by observation. Person 2 is oblique* I could go into a clause of an order of speakers here too so as an aside: We we may even go as far with the phrasing to say that person 2 may claim to understand "us" as preceding speakers or infer a reference to the entire island's population & not necessarily quantus of an inquiry abstracted from 3 people; Person 2 does not explicitly attest to "us 3" as every state of the group or that theirself person 2 is a tribe apart & the only truth-teller on the island. We don't even have an explicit equation of "you" the observer asking an inquiry! For all we know these people may be in the midst of theory, in a metaphorical manner how they introduce themselves etc. Moving on, person 2's claim is not bound to a congruent future state of these islanders, to follow the previous known principle & account about such magical islanders. Subjectively we are dealing with people & people are rather silly! If the unknown 3rd person differs from person 2 they may fail person 2's assertion, jointly break the principle population's stride & introduce retroduction of the principle being true. We may not wish to break the figure of person 2 & change the principle but within iteration, *the truth of 3 is not up to the given logic of person 2, truth remains the logic of a succinct statement*, a given remainder. A remainder may orbit a true liar & revolve the principle. In metaphorical summary: Person 2 is no angel in the sense that they do not impart an attested truth they just #&$$@%# a statement that may or may not be true "Just one of us is a truth-teller", claimed the 3rd person. The 2nd person said nothing. | "Just one of us is a truth-teller", claimed the 2nd person. The 3rd person said nothing. Do we see how observing either oblique equation does not change any tribe affiliation of these people? A oblique statement does not force perspective of who the final person is. We may retort to the obtuse that "You don't know" & without the obtuse discerning their obtrusive statement within this conversation we would not show who the final person is. It's just an obstructive thing to say I'm mostly saying that people are not good examples of truth & that fiction permits a claim to know something unrevealed. Truth needs to logically observe person 3 to reveal person 2 as correct or else we assert the condition that a person knows one another because of an abstraction of everyone being correct

[@abhinav3478]

@@AlyxGlide are you lawyer or something. The fact that you are exploiting the loop hole of this question is rather intriguing to see. The fact that this is a mathematical question rather than a philosophical (which can be both but because of context) swept away the obscure nature of the question. The question is well defined in mathematical term but rather overcast by indefinite variables in philosophical onewhich is quite interesting to see

[@mohammadabrarnasim.hemon.5387]

Sir eddie woo could you please take A level math class under cambridge carriculum.I love your video.

[@shahadut2005]

Thanks

[@lintellectuelinculte4565]

On the nature of knowledge, Philosophy also uses deductive logic.

[@abhinav3478]

Philosophy come from air

[@spyrgelispyy]

This seems interesting. Could this maybe be called metamathematics? Meta- prefix always confuses me. Greetings from the other side of the globe.

[@DrCyanic]

Metamathematics is an actual subject that can be studied in maths! It’s more in lined with mathematical logic which consists of proof and model theory as example branches of study. It’s strange but very interesting.

[@JohnSmith-rf1tx]

The discussion about how mathematical knowledge is different from scientific knowledge is slightly misleading with respect to science because science doesn't actually claim to know or prove that something is "true". In response to your question, "How do we know things are true, how do we know what is reality, in science," the only truly correct answer is that we don't. We can't know things are "true". The best we can do is use observation, experimentation, and analysis to create models (scientific theories) that agree with observations and experimental results. And the better the model, the closer it will agree and the longer it will survive as new evidence is found. Some models are so astonishingly good that it would take monumental, gargantuan discoveries of new evidence to overthrow them and the likelihood of this happening is vanishingly rare, but that possibility will never be totally overcome. It can't be. Unlike math, in science there's no axiomatic knowledge that we can, a priori, establish as true. As a result, nothing can be scientifically proved as true.

[@ARKGAMING]

"Congratulations you've made it, 2020 is over"

[@plzopenitnow]

In mathematics We need just pen & paper to prove things but in other subject we need Labs, instument etc

[@7t___]

Am I the only one Who want to participate just like I was in the class

[@VexelTheGod53]

RJVX12 - best investment if you want to earn crypto

[@ydoesgooglesuck1960]

I don't believe Math is unique, but I do believe it is a singular noun ('math' not 'maths')...mathematics is not unlike gymnastics grammatically, just ask your 'Gyms' couch... ar ar ar. Math is completely out of cumulative years of human perspective, using a complex series of measurement and thought to achieve understanding about reality (or at least that which we live within). Another lifeform under a different cosmic set of conditions may very well have built their understanding from the transcendentals, not their fingers...

[@bilal_ali.]

*Answer* - " There are two liar's and one truth-teller " Explanation - If you focus on the second sentence he says " Just one of us is a truth-teller " let us assume that the second sentence is true . Means the person is a truth-teller . And Now if you look a first sentence that is " We all are liar's " then according to our assumption he is telling lie because only two of them are liar's ( and not all of them ) . Hence our assumption is true . Answer - there are two liar's and one truth-teller . 😊 Is what I think is the correct answer . 🙌 🇮🇳

[@cukurtv2407]

Is there still anyone who didnt know about RJVX12?

[@deepaksoni-8765]

first person is surely a liar. because if he is a truth teller he not called himself a liar. (about second person things are doubhtful. but the condition about island make a sense that he can be b truth tellar or a liar. )

[@R-OHAN]

Wait, the school day starts at 7.30??

[@nawaf_ksa0]

The first person is a liar The second person is truth-teller The third person is a liar.

[@kalmurmind]

Ciao :) I promise you nothing is as chaotic as it seems. Nothing is worth diminishing your health. Nothing is worth poisoning yourself into stress, anxiety, and fear.😄😄😄

[@AlyxGlide]

Who's to say true that 1 and/or 2 know 3? We lie when we say that we know a truth when we do not. This falsity is called a true lie TBH Eddie, I wouldn't trust any of them! The island has a bad reputation so we may be better off asking something non-subjective

[@andynicholson7944]

I assume this ambiguity is deliberate, and if so it’s a lovely touch. There are limits to what you can determine off incomplete information.

[@alperyavuz8581]

RJVX12 algorithm is my choice, i dont worry about BTC rates at all

[@odie-wankenodie8607]

Although I do find mathematics to be fairly uninteresting, I understand that it is valuable.

[@umutcoban3850]

Why are you watching this!? Read about the RJVX12 algorithm!

[@aliarcan9613]

Yes Yes! Read everything, and then say that you did not know RJVX12 algorithm!

[@GooogleGoglee]

1st is a lair 2nd is a truth-teller 3rd is a liar

[@justinbishop54]

First guy is a liar, second guy is telling the truth, third guy is a liar