Pi and Four Fingers - Numberphile

Pi, Spigot Algorithms and why The Simpsons is not in Base 8? Simon Singh's book is at: amzn.to/1fKe4Yo
More links & stuff in full description below ↓↓↓
NUMBERPHILE
Website: www.numberphile.com/
Numberphile on Facebook: / numberphile
Numberphile tweets: / numberphile
Subscribe: bit.ly/Numberphile_Sub
Videos by Brady Haran
Patreon: / numberphile
Brady's videos subreddit: / bradyharan
Brady's latest videos across all channels: www.bradyharanblog.com/
Sign up for (occasional) emails: eepurl.com/YdjL9
Numberphile T-Shirts: teespring.com/stores/numberphile
Other merchandise: store.dftba.com/collections/n...

[@christophersavignon4191]

I can remember every digit of 1/3 far beyond the 40,000th.

[@azerefendizade6017]

Lol

[@arkanon8661]

i know it to the infinitieth digit, and the infinitieth digit is 3. well, i know its 0.33 recurring which is wierd because multiplying that by 3 gives you 1-Δ

[@sulferx6370]

Well is it an irrational number?

[@randomguy263]

@@arkanon8661 Infinity isn't a number.

[@Fehnickss]

-

[@Toastmaster_5000]

"and then you draw an octagon" *scribbles everywhere*

[@Wafflical]

don't you hate how that is now bold, instead of having asterisks around it? You should be able to use a backslash to stop it.

[@GirishManjunathMusic]

... "something like that."

[@yosefmacgruber1920]

@@Wafflical Huh? You can terminate the *bold* option so that it does not run on all the way to the end of the paragraph or comment.

[@erikkonstas]

@@yosefmacgruber1920 \*These backslashes shouldn't be visible.\*

[@yosefmacgruber1920]

@@erikkonstas If you are attempting HTML, then you are doing it wrong. And I do not think that YT comments allow any HTML coding. You do not need any backslashes. Surround what you want in *bold* with asterisks. Both to start and to terminate.

[@vladulenta1522]

when i was a child i thought characters have 4 fingers so they have no middle fingers (it was a good theory at the time ._.)

[@Sacorian]

Funnily enough this is how the writers got around the censors for the Simpsons movie.

[@RWoody1995]

oh yes! thats brilliant

[@redbeam_]

thats a great theory!

[@Rhovanion85]

My middle finger feels offended.

[@yosefmacgruber1920]

Cartoon and file icon drawings are typically over-simplified. Otherwise, they would be photos, and wouldn't so well fit into the small amount of space allocated for a file icon. Also, 5 fingers would take longer to draw than 4 fingers. But perhaps as cartoons increasingly become 3-D computer graphics generated, maybe we will see better attention to detail?

[@okuhara]

3:07 - Me trying to solve math problems.

[@cla693]

Vitor Okuhara same

[@gaberox2001]

😹😹😹😹😹😹

[@nickfelten5068]

my first tought when I saw this was "there is surely a comment about that"

[@mihiru]

How about trying to solve them at 3:14..

[@samieb4712]

"like that"

[@DOUGL4S1]

This reminded me of the episode "Bye Bye Nerdie" where Frink was trying to make an audience of scientists to stay quiet, so the shouted "Pi is exactly three!"

[@nottherealpaulsmith]

My math teacher showed me that in third grade.

[@user-id6qi1ny9z]

+Douglas Rampazo The episode is actually "Bye Bye Nerdie"

[@DOUGL4S1]

+zelda fan I Always mistake these two. Thanks.

[@LaGuerre19]

glaven

[@MisterAppleEsq]

That was in the book, I think.

[@ChrisDodgen]

It's not about the fingers looking like a bunch of bananas, which can certainly happen. It's that in the early days of animation, they figured out that cutting down on the number of fingers cut down on the man-hours and money it took to tween them. For lovers of math, think about it as 2 fewer fingers to draw times 12 frames per second times 60 seconds times 10 minutes. That's 14,400 fingers you didn't have to draw, quite an economical difference.

[@Mikey-cb2wx]

Lolwut? It saves them from drawing 14,400 fingers? You literally just said it save them time from tweening, make up your mind xD

[@ChrisDodgen]

You seem to be confused about what tweening is and how it works.

[@rich1051414]

Conversely, in some cultures, missing fingers is a taboo, as digits are removed from those outcast from society, like thieves.

[@jsck4135]

If I'm not wrong, I think Vox did a video about this.

[@notme-ji5uo]

just dont draw fingers then

[@bmbm2sg1]

all I could concentrate on throughout this whole video was this guy's haircut

[@WM_46]

+Dyl Makes me think about the Borderlands series...

[@michaelbauers8800]

But he looks nothing like claptrap ;)

[@jakebewely6519]

Dyl same man and his glasses

[@hps362]

I saw him at the Team Maths Challenge Finals yesterday. It was really cool. He talked about this sort of stuff and I just thought "Yeah, I've seen you on numberphile." It was really cool.

[@vamshidarisi8400]

hps362 which one? Regionals or nationals?

[@ryanamberger]

I remember an episode where burns is talking about his grandpa, reminiscing about the past when they used to split atoms by hand. Showed an employee busting atoms with a hammer and his grandpa catches the employee stealing atoms by hiding them in his pocket. LOL

[@timothysinclair3670]

+Ryan Amberger I remember that episode. There were seven!

[@DrToonhattan]

+Tim Sinclair There were six of them.

[@sidarthur8706]

those were the days

[@IvaNiftyChannel]

in the simpsons, Homer is actually the world's leading specialist in pie

[@punxride024]

you win

[@TheSonicfan108]

Lol.

[@Sacorian]

Mm...floor pie!

[@shruggzdastr8-facedclown]

...and his head is so sweet and tasty.

[@calebmauer1751]

I thought he was more of a toroid expert.

[@tibschris]

3:06 octagon is an amazing shape

[@jackeea_]

tibschris that has eight fantastic sides and eight awesome angles!

[@CaseyShontz]

tibschris that could be a meme

[@eddominates]

the accuracy is astounding

[@Bob3519]

And it makes a sweet fighting arena too! ;)

[@shrimatkapoor2200]

I love how Simon Singh goes into so much detail... It really makes maths so cool

[@derekdu7250]

i need that circle generator

[@jpod4237]

derek du Me

[@sdbo7102]

wait... life of pie was really about Apu?

[@pablolavado2606]

de

[@EriksGarbage]

Spacito

[@LuisMiguelGarridoGenesta03]

Sua

[@oledakaajel]

Creeper

[@brocseib]

The spigot formula that Simon refers to in the video is wrongly attributed to Bailey. It was actually discovered by Simon Plouffe (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Plouffe), who has regretted sharing that discovery with Bailey and Borwein. Incidentally related to this video, Plouffe was a former world record holder for memorizing digits of pi to 4096 digits, which stood until 1977. Below are Simon's actual words on the topic of sharing credit of his discovery. It's a bit gut wrenching. It came from here: groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math.symbolic/a3kVKVYJhgc ---- This note explains the story of the so-called Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe algorithm and formula. The story began many years ago in 1974 when I wanted to find a formula for the n'th digit of Pi. I was studying rational and irrational numbers. With my calculator I was computing inverses of primes and could easily find a way to compute those inverses in base 10 to many digits using congruences and rapid exponentiation. Since it appeared impossible to do the same for Pi, I wanted then to find a simple formula f(n) that could compute the n'th digit of Pi. I had that idea for 20 years. Since the computation of Pi looks more complicated than the number E , i.e. exp(1), I studied a way to compute that number instead. At that time (around 1983), I had a simple Basic program that used a spigot algorithm to compute E, as expected that algorithm worked but of course but was taking an increasing amount of memory. My question was : why can't we do it for E or Pi or any irrational numbers like sqrt(2). It was during the year 1994 that I began to compute arctan series but I did not realized that this meant a lot. I was able to use an algorithm to compute arctan of 1/5 with fast exponentiation without realizing that it could compute arctan(1/5) in base 5 very fast since the rapid exponentiation was natural in that base. Later in 1995, around august 7 of that year I suddenly realized that log(2) was fast computable in base 2. Since I had a bit of experience with spigot algorithms and also my little Basic program to compute arctan, it was not difficult to adapt the algorithm to log(2). In the next few days I made my first program : A program to compute log(9/10) in base 10 using a very small amount of memory and very fast. The program had 432 characters long. That discovery was a shock to me. I realized that I had found it yes but it was not new to me since I could do arctan(1/5) easily too but it took me 2 years to realize it. This is where I began to use Pari-Gp, that program could find an integer relation among real numbers (up to a certain precision), very fast. During my stay at Bordeaux University in 1992-1993 I perfected that program I had that could interface Pari-Gp and Maple. That little Unix script had an enormous advantage of flexibility because I could set up a series of real numbers to test among 1 unknown. At that time I was beginning to find new results, the programs were able to find identities. That program was the one that found the formula for Pi in hexadecimal (or binary). I also used another one : PSLQ. It was a good program but a bit cumbursome to use since it is written in fortran. Nevertheless I made an interface to Maple too. Pari-Gp was by far easier to use and faster for small cases (up to 10 real numbers at the time with 100 digits precision was enough for those kind of problems). This is where I made the biggest mistake in my life : To accept the collaboration of Peter Borwein and David H. Bailey as co-founders of that algorithm and formula when they have found nothing at all. David Bailey was not even close to me when I found the formula. He was added to the group 2 months after the discovery. I was naively thinking that I could negociate a job as professor at Simon Fraser University, which failed. I am very poor at negociations. I remember that day when the Globe & Mail newspaper article went out in October 1995. I was at Jon borwein's house and he had a copy of the newspaper in hand. This is where I asked him to become a professor at SFU. He simply replied right away < don't even think about it >. I thought, this is the best chance I will ever have to become a professor there, since it failed, I decided that I had to leave that place. I was very frustrated at that time, in late 1995 after the discovery. I realized that many small details where terribly wrong. They were getting a lot of credit for the discovery and I had the impression of not getting anything in return. My strategy failed. One of those details was the article of the Globe and Mail, I asked Peter Borwein : why did they putted the photo of you and your brother on the article ? Your brother has nothing to do with this!. He simply replied that the Public Relations at the University made a mistake. Later that year, I was invited to a ceremony in Vancouver for the CUFA (faculty of the year Award). This is a prize with plaque and mention that those 2 brothers received for the discovery of the formula. They simply mentioned my name at the ceremony and I received nothing at all. They made a toast to the queen of England, I did not stand up. In late 1995, there was that Canadian Math Soc. congress in Vancouver, I was not invited to talk about the discovery. There was even a guy (Stan Wagon) that said to me, I don't know if you have anything to do with this but in all case, this is good for you isn't ? Then in 1996, I realized that if I get up at night to hate them it is a very bad sign, it means that I have to leave that place (Simon Fraser university). I was convinced I had no future at all with those 2 guys around. I was making serious plans to leave. The story of the formula (my formula), was not the only one. The same thing happened with the ISC (the Inverse Symbolic Calculator). The story is even more ridiculous. I opened the site with my constants in July 1995 and it was an immediate success. The 2 Borweins had nothing to do with that thing, I had made the tables and all of the Unix programs to run it. The precious help I had was from Adam Van Tuyl, a graduate student, he made most of the code behind the web pages, later Paul Irvine made some additional code. At that time the local administrator of the lab. tried to convince me to stay even to pay me for maintaining the ISC, I refused. I wanted to leave with what I had : my tables of real numbers and sequences I worked for years (since 1986). This is why I opened the Plouffe Inverter with my name in 1998, to keep what was mine. When I realized that I was about to loose the paternity of the ISC, I left in march 1997. I went to Champaign Illinois to work for Wolfram and Mathematica. (this time it took me less time), that one was worst than the 2 brothers combined. I simply left as soon as I could, 5 months later. Peter Borwein wanted very much that I do a Ph. D. on the ISC but he wanted also to publish (with his name of course) an article before I deposit the thesis. Again the same story was going on, these 2 guys are so greedy I can't believe it. The behavior they had with me was not exclusive, especially Peter Borwein he was the same with most of his students, especially the good ones, sucking the maximum. Jon is the same but he has more talent in politics (more money too). He is good but has a tendency to site himself a lot. He thinks that if he had the idea of the sum of 2 numbers at one point in his life then all formulas in mathematics are his own discovery. About David H. Bailey. He came after the discovery of the formula and my small basic program , I had also a fortran version. This is where Peter Borwein suggested to add him as a collaborator to the discovery since he contributed to it (as he said), this is my second big mistake. Of course he accepted to co-write the article, who wouldn't ?! David H. Bailey (and Ferguson) are the authors of the PSLQ program. That program is the version of the Pari-Gp program. I used it a little it is true, but what made the discovery was pari-Gp and Maple interface program I had. So actually, that person has nothing to do with the discovery of that algorithm and very little to do with the finding of the formula. The mistake was mine. Saying that Bailey found the formula is like saying that the formula was found by the Maple and Basic program. I tried very hard to correct the situation avoiding the subject of the actual discovery of the algorithm and the formula, I made an article in 1996 for the base 10. I thought naively again that this would re-establish the situation, it did not. I almost accepted to do a film at one point in 1999 when a certain guy from England that wanted to make a movie on Pi and the discovery of the formula. he asked me if I would accept to talk about my with the Borweins. I did not wanted to go in that direction, I should had. There was that book of Jean-Paul Delahaye (le fascinant nombre pi) that mentioned the Plouffe algorithm and formula because I told him part of the story. In some way I was afraid of revealing that enormous story. Why was I so naive ? I had a previous collaboration with Neil Sloane and the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences and the web site, this was really a big success and Neil is the person I respect the most in mathematics so this is why I thought (wrongly ) that my collaboration with the Borweins had to go well, a big mistake. Why do I write this ? To tell the truth and also the arrogance of those people makes me sick. Will I gain something from this ? I don't care, I have nothing to loose. Simon Plouffe Montréal, le 22 juin 2003.

[@owen3974]

I like long comments. a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

[@KingdomOfDimensions]

Broc Seib Mis-attribution is unfortunately one of the most common of slights against professionals perpetrated by the media. It makes me sick too, I can only imagine how annoying it'd be to have one of your greatest achievements attributed to someone else.

[@davidgonzales9828]

PortalPlayer hhvghhhh

[@MarkusHobelsberger]

Now... actually the interesting question is... what is pi's 40.000th digit in base 8?

[@LevatekGaming]

Pretty sure it’d still be one? Only number that would change would be 9 and wouldn’t that become a 0. Not too sure tho

[@jetison333]

James Evans no because the 40000ths digit of pi in base 8 isn't the same digit in base 10

[@biomedbot]

but 40000 is a base ten number too. so the actual real question is which base 8 number is in the 40000th position (isn't that the 16384th place if converted from base 10?)

[@tomharner83]

biomedbot whoa

[@johannesh7610]

biomedbot no, of course not. The "number" must be bigger before the decimal point because you need mor powers of eight to get to the same number as with powers of ten Edit, ah, ok, you converted to decimal. That didn't become clear from your text. However, 40000 base A is 116100 base 8

[@markmcarthur5090]

I love how he's using a colourful kid's bucket to avoid embarrassment :)

[@gupbernard]

Now I'm very curious if the 40,000th number of pi in octal base is also 1. Can someone run it?

[@AmandaOlson77]

Let me get right on that for you.

[@collin5752]

9

[@ExaltedPhoenix]

+collin nice

[@fikluk4118]

it cant be nine because octal base only goes to 7 lol

[@1991dmj]

i am pretty sure it can be calculated without converting the whole number into different numerical system, just needs a little of thought

[@TheFinalRevelation1]

Keep on "splitting atoms" for the fun of it!

[@AirshipToday]

Why has no one commented on this??

[@canguar]

This is awesome. There was a big article about Simon Singh's work on the Simpsons in a big German newspaper this week, which I really enjoyed reading. Although I knew it all from the channel already :D thank you for sharing your thoughts with us on YT and not only writing books (which, of course, is great as well)

[@kcagent99]

Although I have never been a fan of the Simpsons, this is a fascinating video in which I enjoyed greatly- the promise of mathematics in the Simpsons is almost enough to convince me to now watch them. Thank you, Numberphile, for taking the time to create these videos for the love and understanding of math.

[@inFAMOUSBlastshards]

3:06 for rage quit! XD

[@lin4cba]

LOL

[@SinisterSally]

I'm Cambodian, my early life was in base 5. when I was younger I was able to easily go from base 5 when talking with my parents and base 10 at school. Now a days I have to count if i want to remember what the Khmer equivalent of an English number after 15 lol.

[@ElMoShApPiNeSs]

I bought this guy's book. Awesome read.

[@MinuteMaths]

Great Video Numberphile, I love all of your videos

[@Cinqmil]

I like the circle generator. Where can you buy such a device? 2:12

[@LexPodgorny]

+Cinqmil Toys-R-Us? :)))

[@Cinqmil]

Lex :P And what would the name be of this marvellous invention?

[@LexPodgorny]

+Cinqmil It may be sold either as a yellow open faced frustum or a toy bucket.

[@Cinqmil]

Lex :P Cool! I'll look it up. :D

[@youtubelife921]

Lex R.I.P toys ‘r’ us :(

[@sparkyb6]

I heard a rumor though, that in the episode "22 Short Films About Springfield", there aren't 22 shorts, but only 18 which is written as 22 in base 8. Is there any truth to that, indicating that they do sometimes use base 8 in The Simpsons?

[@DrToonhattan]

+Ben Buchwald Well there are indeed only 18 shorts in that episode, assuming you don't count the one that Prof. Frink almost has at the end. 22 in base 8 is indeed 18 in base 10, so it seems reasonable this was done on purpose.

[@AngelOneiros]

On the DVD commentary for that episode, they explain that they insisted on the title '22 Short Films', because it is a reference to a real movie with a similar name, but didn't actually bother making sure there were 22 stories. The title was more important to them than the actual number of stories, or whether it was accurate.

[@hola_chelo]

Soo if i calculate π on a mac, does it make it an apple π?

[@WalterKingstone]

+Jose Maquia Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[@okie9025]

Jose Maquia you can't calculate PI on an overpriced toy like an Apple product

[@anamatte7556]

Heck

[@spv420]

@@okie9025 you do know the meaning of the term "joke", correct?

[@shadowpod13]

This is a funny and neat bit of math and Simpsons trivia. I especially laughed at the twist at the end.

[@sjaatime]

They've done a base 12 video explaining how old societies used base 12 and how they counted with just 10 fingers. It's actually one of my favorite videos they've done.

[@Huntracony]

i tried to post the first 100,000 digits of pi, youtube responded "there was a problem saving your comment" XD

[@Nekkitus]

Love your channel! Gives something to think about

[@DavidGillemo]

I'm so amazed of this video. Thank you!

[@Tahoza]

"Circle generator". Awesome.

[@k3dr1]

2:12 Students, get your compasses: Me:

[@beybladebaby]

Its also just a lot easier to animate and draw three fingers and a thumb, it still creates all the gestures you need them to make, still nice to know and cool they actually looked it up

[@easterdeer]

Excellent video! I love Simon's books; they've got the perfect balance of Mathematics and the people behind it. : ]

[@WayneJohnsonZastil]

Is Pi an infinite number?

[@DonaldKronos]

Just a thought... if the spigot algorithm is designed for base 16, and someone wanted to find the forty thousandth digit of pi in base 8, it would not be hard to figure out which 3 bits would make up that octal digit in the binary representation, which can be derived from hexadecimal 4 digits at a time. So for example, if we wanted to find the 21st octal digit of pi, we could start with the 16th hexadecimal digit and simply remove the high order bit. That is to say, the 21st octal digit of pi would be the 20th octal digit after the octal fraction point, which would contain as its low order bit the 60th binary digit after the binary fraction point since there are exactly 3 binary digits to each octal digit and three times eight equals sixty. Likewise, that 60th binary digit after the binary fraction point would also be the low order bit of the 15th hexadecimal digit after the hexadecimal fraction point, since there are exactly 4 binary digits to each hexadecimal digit and sixty divided by four equals fifteen. So... Pi in hexadecimal to 16 digits, including 15 digits after the fraction point = 3.243F6A8885A308D Straight forward hexadecimal to binary conversion... ___3. 2 4 3 F 6 A 8 8 8 5 A 3 0 8 D 0011.0010 0100 0011 1111 0110 1010 1000 1000 1000 0101 1010 0011 0000 1000 1101 Pi in Binary to 62 digits, including 60 digits after the fraction point = 11.001001000011111101101010100010001000010110100011000010001101 Straight forward binary to octal conversion... 011.001 001 000 011 111 101 101 010 100 010 001 000 010 110 100 011 000 010 001 101 __3. 1 1 0 3 7 5 5 2 4 2 1 0 2 6 4 3 0 2 1 5 Pi in octal to 21 digits, including 20 digits after the fraction point = 3.11037552421026430215 ...so the 21st significant digit of pi in octal, or in other words, it's 20 digit past the fraction point, would be a 5. In hexadecimal, the high order bit of each digit is valued at 8, so since in this particular case the high order bit of the 15th digit after the hexadecimal fraction point is not part of the 20th octal digit past the octal fraction point, we get D-8=5. Sorry I couldn't find a way to format the conversions in a mono-spaced font as I had intended. If anyone wonders why I put the spaces in where I did, they can copy it to a monospaced text editor like Notepad to see.

[@yosefmacgruber1920]

I think if you want to use non-proportional character spacing, then you need to use the Courier font. But then there is probably no way to do this in a YT comment? On my old Macintosh, I actually created my own font, because I didn't like the look of Courier. I wanted a non-proportional font for displaying program code.

[@BronzNazareth]

+1... This channel is great, every vid grabs my attention.

[@jeffshubert]

It's great to see Simon Singh on Numberphile! I'm a big fan of the Code Book.

[@umcarainteressante]

This guy's hair. It's so awesome.

[@zanamitevska816]

... hair's; it's so awesome.* :)

[@MrAetherGaming]

3:03 nice octagon

[@phiberoptick]

I love this channel.

[@81jcvs]

Great deduction! Thanks for the video.... Made me think of all those little details!

[@flyingerasehead]

7:59 I am tired of jokes about my giant hand. The first such incident occurred in 1956 when...

[@whoaminow100]

i think that the Simpsons live in a base 10 world because the writers have 10 fingers

[@cnano98]

richard reeves Well then you're obliterating the fourth wall

[@JaimewissnerCreate]

Sective Considering Matt has been a character in the show, we're kinda past that point.

[@cnano98]

Ceyaje (HugzTiem) I haven't watched the Simpsons. I'm more of a documentary kinda guy.

[@cnano98]

***** Mostly military and science. Some maths, but those are kinda hard to find.

[@SiggiNebel]

+richard reeves Actually, the Simpsons count eight fingers + two nipples, but there's no way to demonstrate this in American TV.

[@wmheric]

"There are two reasons for doing Mathematics. One reason is to solve problems. We might call that Applied Mathematics, and engineers use it, and scientists use it, and everybody uses it -- in order to get something done. But the other half of Mathematics is what we might call Pure Mathematics. It is purely there, for the love of Mathematics, for the enrichment to Mathematics. I suspect that the Spigot Algorithm is really done for the love of it, for trying to understand this wonderful number we call Pi." Well said. Well said.

[@NassosConqueso]

Wow, I just loved your channel!! xD

[@nomainergaming2100]

damn it i'm supposed to do my math homework but I can't seem to get of watching these videos xD

[@OlivioSarikas]

Sooo... in 1993 there was no file that could have been searched to show the digit 40000 of Pi? surely they had calculated far more than that and computers where used a lot already at that time.

[@OlivioSarikas]

Robo9400 you don't need the internet if you can do it on your how PC in some minutes. The Software for this can be mailed. so, still, easy to do with no math genius needed

[@aleksander706]

Olivio Sarikas You can try to buy yourself a computer made in 93 or earlier, and try to figure out what the 41 000 number is, without using internet. They had calculated far more than that yes, but the 40 000 number of pi isnt that usefull.

[@jaguilar13]

My favorite thing about the pi vids are the length of the videos...including this one :)

[@gunner678]

The Simpsons is a tremendous teaching aid. Great video. Mathematics is a language and any language application should be applied accurately meaningfully and elegantly. The drive for excellence is its own reward. Mark Pinski's book on the Simpsons is also extremely enlightening.

[@Studzuki]

Interesting, but are we really a base 10 civilization because of our fingers. Haven't we used various bases throughout history? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numeral_systems I'd argue that god has 5 fingers per hand because that would represent a human being the god of the cartoon.

[@silkwesir1444]

apparently it's the only one that stuck with commoners, who have other things to do but think of numbers all day. and who did not care about multiplication as much as they did with addition that would be my guess

[@JLConawayII]

Why is Simpsons not octal? I dunno, why are there myriad number systems throughout history not based on 10? 12, 20, 60, 27, etc. have been used at one time or another. I mean really, if number bases were based solely on digits then I feel sorry for the poor Sumerian that came up with base-60.

[@Jeremy0459]

JLConawayII Actually, funnily enough the Sumerians did count on their digits just in base 12. They counted on the knuckles of their fingers, four fingers with three knuckles each, using their thumb to touch each knuckle as they counted. Just goes to show that people can figure out ways to count on their body regardless of what base they decide to use.

[@magellanicraincloud]

At 2:26 Archimedes chokes on his beer, overhearing someone explaining how you can measure volume by dipping in water and weighing what falls out.

[@missrobinhoodie]

I‘m currently studying to become a elementary school teacher. In my math class we repeated to whole curriculum for elementary school math WITH A BASE 8 SCENARIO. Our professor wanted us to realize how difficult it is for young children to start thinking in the 10-system by forcing us to imagine we only had simpson-like-hands with 4 fingers on each hand only.

[@BigNWide]

The Doctor Who 50th anniversary is this month, so why not do an episode on numbers in DW? There was an episode entitled "42" (for many numerical reasons) in which happy numbers and primes figure.

[@michaelkovac7003]

Well I'm not fuckin Einstein...and I never went to any school.. (we don't have them worth the name in eastern europe) but I allways for some reason dream...that I knew math. But...then again...after 4 years of"education"..we were all suposed to work in some factory...girls in childcare or as nurses at the best Now I am to old..but still..the stuff fascinated me for all of my life. So go on..make kids think for themselves. .to..dream.. You do a good job:-)! Ceep on doing it right:-)!

[@00beasis]

More of this fine chap please Brady

[@SometimesImaPenguin]

I don't think I could describe someone as a "...world expert in Pi..." and keep a straight face. 1:40

[@Reionder]

Jesus also has 5 fingers.

[@hughmungus4274]

lesson to be learnt: Mathematicians have too much free time.

[@DanielRossellSolanes]

+fabian sadler I only half agree. for a mathematician maths is not something you do during free time. it's (part of) the work they do.

[@hughmungus4274]

Daniel Rossell Solanes I was kidding mate. I'm an awful mathematician. I lost interest the moment they started teaching me things that aren't applicable to the line of work I wish to follow. I do have a great deal of respect for mathematicians, though.

[@dittbub]

Apparently so too do simpsons writers

[@gary-williams]

As this video progressed, I was really, really hoping the producers of the Simpsons had buried an Easter egg in Apu's line, by determining that the 40,000th *octal* digit of pi *also* happened to be 1, so the line worked in either base and made it ambiguous as to which base the characters were really using.

[@thewhitehurricane8078]

your channel is pretty good. subbed!

[@RFC3514]

Simon always reminds me a bit of Earthworm Jim.

[@ariztrad4386]

Can't you use a string to measure the circumference?

[@fallagainstmorellet]

Not accurately

[@tinycatzilla]

blu3s3rp3nt If the circle is 3D, as in it has walls, then yes, it will be accurate as you can pull the string around. However if you are just laying the string down on a flat surface it will not be accurate.

[@fallagainstmorellet]

ThePerry Assuming you can make an absolute perfect circle, which is highly unlikely, especially looking at it atomically.

[@tinycatzilla]

But if the figure has walls you can pull the string tightly against the walls thus making a accurate measurement.

[@fallagainstmorellet]

ThePerry Assuming ofcourse the object has uniform density/elasticity etc

[@ALoonwolf]

I memorised Pi to 88 decimal places, as that was all I had available. And I couldn't even remember whether a thief was wearing gloves or not, or even the colour of his clothes.

[@StellaMatico]

got the book. it's amazing *__* next week I'll hold a presentation bout the math behind the simpson, based on my own observance and this book ! Thank you Simon Singh!

[@WhatIsMushlev]

Did i ever tell you the definiton of insanity?

[@MrRayhobbs]

Actually There Are Two Characters That Have Five Fingers God And Jesus :P

[@tibschris]

You know, it typically takes one extra finger to capitalize the first letter of Every Single Word. Weird huh?

[@krim7]

Rohan Zener I don't know which religious sect you learned this from but I can guarantee you no one thinks Satan is part of the trinity.

[@Firem1nded]

Wow this book got quite popular! I'm looking forward to buy a copy myself :)

[@romypotash7114]

I sow the video and I was like "wait, is this Simon sing? I love his books" and yes

[@magicstix0r]

It's silly to say that the number of fingers on each hand is the reason we use base 10. It's purely cultural. Even looking at older English, you can see that numbers used to be base 12 (you don't say 2-teen, you say twelve). The Mayan culture used base 13, there are other cultures that use base 20, etc... The fact that the world uses base-10 today probably has more to do with the Arabic numerals being base 10, which is what has become the standard for representing numbers worldwide.

[@you2tooyou2too]

And 12 (dozen) was used all around the world for practical commerce of weight, count, volume, & time, because it had more whole factors. Likewise, 2 for oz, swallow, gil, cup, pint, quart, oops, & gallon. However, I wouldn't say it is a silly coincidence, it just isn't the only basis.

[@efkanematnals736]

Indian numerals*

[@deezynar]

Remembering that the 40,000th decimal place of pi is 1 doesn't require much of a memory. Did Apu claim he knew all of the preceding decimal places of pi? And was he tested on that?

[@lennartmeyerstenfjeld9473]

deezynar No, it doesn't ... that's the joke.

[@emmastrange5557]

deezynar He says "I can recite Pi to forty-thousand places. The last digit is 1."

[@ThainaYu]

I like the way you call it "Circle Generator"

[@cooooonal]

Classic! Who would have thought!

[@strogg42]

Cool episode. But the guy seems to erroneously think that finger number is _deterministically_ related to base systems - and that's not the case. After all, all humans have 10 fingers, but many cultures have base 20, base 5, or even base 60 systems...

[@BrotherSergeantFlynn]

...Which are all multiples of 5, which is how many fingers we have on one hand. The systems could come from one hand, both hands, all digits, or more. The point is that it's a reasonable assumption to think that fingers are related to base numbers, because it's more convenient for a culture to adopt a system matching their fingers.

[@AnarchistMetalhead]

BrotherSergeantFlynn now please explain base 12 systems

[@strogg42]

BrotherSergeantFlynn Point well taken! :-) I get the connections to the hands... But then... for the Simpsons... it should then also be possible to have base systems that are multiples of 4 (sure, base 8 is going to be most likely).

[@BrotherSergeantFlynn]

AnarchistMetalhead If you are referring to the 12-hour clock, that's because the egyptians used a clock with 10 day hours, 10 night hours, and then two 2 hour periods of twilight separating them. Once it was widespread enough, it was too much hassle to change.

[@strogg42]

BrotherSergeantFlynn AnarchistMetalhead is referring to duodecimal systems (actual counting and number words based on the number 12, not just for units of time but in general) - apparently infrequent, but reported for some languages (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal). That's what I meant when I said that finger numbers are not _deterministically_ related to base systems.

[@michealoflaherty1265]

Surely the easiest way to find the area of a circle would be to use SIMPSONS rule. Boom boom

[@FeAgAU]

Pi with Pie is the first numberphile video I watched.

[@bigboam]

He explains things so elegantly...

[@tlprototype]

That moment when you are watching this at 3:14

[@you2tooyou2too]

In what zone are you?

[@tlprototype]

Pacific Time

[@aizennickoadante5572]

18:28 (6:28 pm) tau

[@phoneman_btw]

Jesus also has 5 fingers on each hand in the simpsons Alltime10s

[@coffeeexmachina]

excellent video!

[@coolcapybara1587]

Our maths teacher played this video on the projector in the background while we worked!

[@Feinx393]

So what's the graham's numbers'th digit of pi?

[@osiris9200]

6. Just a guess, but I swear, if it is right, I will be overjoyed.

[@gojoubabee]

+WhiteDragon Nerf 0. There's my guess!

[@theleftuprightatsoldierfield]

Feinx393 my guess is 9

[@sethgunderson1642]

Feinx393 8

[@Bobsheaux]

Mmmm.... Pie..... -_-

[@johnappleseed8369]

you're into maths? I love you bro!!

[@grabern]

Hi Bobsheaux!

[@MrSingaporeproductio]

I liked how the video start out

[@superhunk1989]

This is a very interesting and great video.

[@impavenleizar]

also jesus i belive has 5 fingers

[@ketam1ne420]

And that comment has 5 likes as of right now...(6:56 PM, 29/11/13(11/29/13 to you americans)

[@FuckingFuckShitBitch]

Same thing. Literally.

[@OverLordGoldDragon]

God...

[@NerdToThePowerOf2]

thts taking the mick init

[@iw51]

oh yes i just found it. really like the knuckle part. thanks!

[@TANGARASandOSCARS]

Got the book. Great Read!

[@wwkingms]

life of pi....stole this..... from the simpsons???

[@thejonjon5000]

Whoah... mind blown... why? Because I've never learnt about this 'base' stuff before. It's only just occured to me now, the link between the word 'decimal' and the number ten ('dec' and all that). I have actually wondered lately why it's the number 10 which has to be so special. Why it's 10 that is so significant. 1 - 10 - 100 - 1000 - etc. But why 1 and 0? Why is it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... repeat in expanding pattern? Why 10 digits? Obviously, explaining my question is a bit difficult due to some kind of explanatory gap or something. I'm just trying to understand why maths works, and why it works with this numeric system. Specifically in reference to 1 and 0. Is this whole 1, 0 thing significant only because of the numerical language we formed to use in order to express an understanding of the world of mathematics? Or would this 1, 0 thing be significant regardless of the form of the numerical language we use to understand maths? Not to the mention the quetion of how it is significant at all if this significance isn't an illusion for some reason or other... Yes, too many questions and not enough understanding. But basically I'm just asking Why and How in terms of mathematics and the way in which we express understanding of mathematics.

[@arosepsy]

While not practical, I really enjoyed the info provided in the video.

[@popcrnshower]

Mind Blown

[@AnonymityIx]

lol wasted all the time for the cop out of "God" being the reason.

[@thescholarlywalrus1138]

Tau is better!

[@channalbert]

The day Brady decides to make a video about the Euler's number, I'll die happy.

[@beeble2003]

Also, it can occasionally be useful to count in base 5 on your fingers. Use 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 fingers on your right hand for the digits and then 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 fingers on your left for blocks of 5. So, for example thee fingers on the left and 2 on the right means 3x5 + 2 = 17. Yes, I'm 221 years old (base 5) and still count on my fingers... sometimes. If I need to count something that happens once every 20-30 seconds, say, over a period of 5-10 minutes, I tend to lose count if I do it in my head