A Proof in the Drawer (with David Eisenbud) - Numberphile Podcast

[@lucickian0yoz]

Please don't stop making these podcasts, Brady. You probably don't (and won't) have a very high number of views on them, but they are very enjoyable for the number of people that do listen to them. Thank you!

[@numberphile2]

They are well listened to on podcast players - never expected them to have high numbers here on KZbin. Just pop them on here for people who don’t do podcasts.

[@Falcrist]

@@numberphile2 88k isn't too bad, especially for pre-existing content.

[@DeclanMBrennan]

In this age of shallow and strident media , how pleasurable it is to listen to David Eisenbud quietly giving us insights born of a lifetime of experience. And bravo Brady - you're the perfect interviewer. No ego and no need to insert yourself unnecessarily. You just gave a perfectly judged nudge to the conversation every now and again.

[@josephbrennan370]

wow another Brennan. I wonder if we are related. Then again, the surname is quite common.

[@numberphile2]

Catch David in some of our videos... bit.ly/Eisenbud_Videos

[@PrincipalAgents]

These podcasts are superb. Thank you very much for creating them Brady!

[@courtney-ray]

His voice is very pleasant to listen to and the stories shared were great! Thanks for this

[@taopaille-paille4992]

he has a very soothing voice, indeed

[@roderickwhitehead]

I absolutely love any content you have with David. It's always a treat. Thank you, Brady.

[@eigentlichtoll02]

"Talent certainly plays a role. People who say there's no such thing as talent I think are talking _nonsense_ . I do think everybody can learn mathematics and enjoyment of mathematics with good teaching. Do you know there's no such thing as not being able to understand fractions, but talent at the highest level you see and you just - it's jaw-dropping." - David Eisenbud at 51:37

[@taopaille-paille4992]

I love Eisenbud. Such an apeasing way of speaking and a bright human in every sense.

[@M139NG]

"Forget about the subject, find someone you like and work with that person. You'll like the subject soon enough" I love that:)

[@ThePharphis]

Glad I finally got around to listening to this. He has a pleasant voice

[@reinekefuchs267]

Great podcast, great interview! This is true quality content. thank you Brady! Keep up the great work, your channels are important.

[@AdvancedMath]

Brady is the best interviewer on KZbin. What an interview! I loved it. I have listened to it at least half a dozen times already.

[@soupisfornoobs4081]

Wonderful, wonderful podcast. Thank you so much for uploading this to KZbin. This is so calming, and an excellent listen overall.

[@ekwem]

One heck of an awesome voice. Excellent to listen to while falling asleep. Voice followed me into my dreams.

[@standing_around]

I've only recently come across these podcasts and I'm loving them. Really enjoyable - great interviewing and it's wonderful listening to the stories from the guests we know and love from your videos. The musical interludes and visuals are also pleasant and relaxing!

[@croi5613]

He is basically like the bob ross of mathematics

[@jaredislversteindrums]

Brady, this is truly amazing content. Thank you!

[@polopadic7954]

1:15:19 of listening pleasure. Wonderful, thanks guys

[@RexRectumIV]

Thank you for your fantastic work, Brady!

[@fedorchr7910]

Thank you for these heart-warming podcasts ))

[@daily8150]

loved the podcast, thank you for these amazing episodes and that music also nice

[@matteovasta2326]

I knew something was missing on KZbin , Mathematical Podcast !!! 💃

[@_-KR-_]

This is really cool. I like recursivity. I remember the dreadfully boring extra maths I had enrolled into, I didn't know it was likely Eisenbud's work I was learning.

[@sciencefordreamers2115]

Very impressive original images sequence!

[@imagineaworld]

This got me through a late night of homework, thank you men!

[@mrnarason]

52:00 That anecdote about von Neumman Eisenbud talks about is on the one wikipedia lol.

[@austynhughes134]

Another great podcast!

[@gauravbharwan6377]

After seeing David Eisenbud I clicked on video without second thought.

[@guitarslim56]

My goodness! What a fascinating podcast! Nice!

[@FloydMaxwell]

A great individual. A great interview. Thank you both.

[@Azulmine]

I recognized his voice just from the hagaromo chalk video

[@clayz1]

Thank you! Interesting through and through.

[@marccowan3585]

I have just found these, how wonderful, James Grimes soon perhaps?

[@numberphile2]

Yes. On the way.

[@misterkefir]

Amazing podcasts, thank You very much Brady ;) Cheers!

[@angelo-witt]

Please more of them!!!

[@PastaMasta123]

Would love Prof. Eisenbud to tell me bedtime stories.

[@njklhs4578]

I really enjoy these.

[@shubhamraj4838]

Great podcast loved listening to it.

[@AaronYool]

I want that video as my screensaver lol

[@gorillaau]

I am cool with a 4:30PM release.

[@HP3Lover]

Same!

[@peterjensen6844]

In the section where David is talking about taking a class from Otto Kegel is says it was taught in a very abstract way. Dave uses a phrase or word that sounds like (putting down phonetically here) "Bor Vi Key". Can someone define that and what he actually said? I swear I've heard the term before and trying to figure out what it means etc

[@orangeguy5463]

Bourbakian! Named after a fictional mathematician, who was in reality a secret group of French mathematicians seeking to formalize all of mathematics into axioms, publishing under the fake name Nicolas Bourbaki. To teach something in the Bourbaki style is to rid oneself of all intuitions, and reduce definitions and theorems into what directly follows from axioms, the idea being that intuition can actually interfere with how we perceive and accept rigorous mathematical proof. But it can be painful if you're a student who isn't ready for such rigour. Professors have the privilege of keeping all of the intuition to themselves while teaching so there's often an imbalance with younger students who need something to latch onto. It's as if when they speak, they are referring directly to an image in their head that they have refuse to draw, and only the lucky few who could manifest the same image for themselves are able to follow along at all.

[@misium]

Do you have an audio podcast I can subscribe to?

[@danjtitchener]

Search for the Numberphile podcast!

[@misium]

@@danjtitchener I found it eventually, but why no RSS link on the website?

[@InsideInterpreting]

I would love to interview Brady.

[@prismaticat]

why does the thumbnail look like a nintendo ds game case tho

[@percypenamora7121]

who are the 12 idiots who gave the 'thumbs down'? What is there to dislike about informative and educational podcasts?

[@markcarey67]

This is great

[@rorypetke9420]

Damnit Brady, why did you have to spoil Moby Dick for me? I was almost to the end.

[@oscarcastaneda5310]

Hola David, Hint on Collatz: The true solution is in the Geometry of the problem. The Geometry will show that a related sequence will eventually cycle the Collatz terms from "2 to 1" to "1 to 2" forever until infinity.

[@dennycote6339]

Love it

[@rahulkumar-hf2jz]

Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaady

[@goldenera7090]

here is my attempt to prove Collatz Conjecture by contradiction: If this is not true, then it means we have a number N, which loops back to N instead of going down to 1. obviously this number N can't be even so has to be odd. which means when we reach number N, we multiply by 3 and add 1 giving 3N + 1 now this 3N + 1 has to be divided by 2 to reach N but we don't know how many times it has to be divided by 2. let us assume this is a times. this gives us an equation: N = (3N + 1) / 2^a or 2^a N = 3N + 1 (2^a -3) N = 1 so when a = 1 , N = -1 a = 2 , N = 1 a >=2 , N has to be a fraction. this proves that for all other integer value of N the conjecture holds true..... …..comments??? no trolling please .....

[@KartonRealista2]

Your even number 3N+1 doesn't have to go back to N by dividing in two, it can take longer, so let's say after dividing it by 2^a you get an odd number B that you have change to 3B+1, divide by 2^b to get to the odd number C, etc. Why would it only need one of those steps? That's way too specific of an example.

[@jrvieira6262]

How are you justifying the assumption that only a cyclic sequence can disprove it?

[@drdphd1981]

🙏🏻💙🧜🏻‍♀️

[@colleen9493]

I think the background is kind of boring.

[@soupisfornoobs4081]

Well, this is a podcast, innit? You'd come here to listen, the background is there to be cosmetic, you're not actually meant to watch it for over an hour

[@eigentlichtoll02]

@@soupisfornoobs4081 haha, omg

[@8forme629]

3x+1 contact me..