The C-Word (talking Calculus with Steven Strogatz) - Numberphile Podcast

We record at the Royal Society in London, with Isaac Newton's original calculus papers.
Infinite Powers by Steven Strogatz - amzn.to/31ywxCg
Steve's author page on Amazon - amzn.to/2KlABjW
Some bonus video footage we filmed at the Royal Society - • Newton Goes Prime Time...
Hannah Fry with the same documents on Objectivity - • Newton vs Leibniz (fea...
And the Principia on Objectivity - • Newton's Principia Man...
The Royal Society - royalsociety.org/
With thanks to
MSRI - www.msri.org
Meyer Sound - meyersound.com/
PODCAST TRANSCRIPTS: www.numberphile.com/podcast-t...

[@numberphile2]

Please do consider subscribing to our podcast on your podcast player... We put them on KZbin here an extra thing, but it's really made to be a podcast!

[@svartanatten9795]

Finally another podcast!!! These podcasts are great! Never stop making them!!!

[@NoriMori1992]

What a lovely man! I first watched the video he made with 3B1B, to get some idea of who he is and what he's like, and he made a great guest/co-presenter. And he's a great guest here as well! I love that he misted up at seeing Newton's notes. That's a sign of deep appreciation and love for his subject and its history. Beautiful.

[@angelo-witt]

finally a new podcast :D thank you brady. You are great

[@WilliamLeeSims]

I've read several Gauss biographies, studied the math he created, and even wrote a paper on him in university. Even with all this knowledge, I would totally read a book dedicated to Gauss, his amazing life, and his amazing (and often surprising) accomplishments.

[@StreuB1]

One of the best podcasts I have ever experienced. WOW!!!!

[@matrixstuff3512]

These interviews just keep getting better!

[@planetsoccer99]

It's a banana, professor, what could it possibly cost? ten dollars?

[@jozbornn]

Strogatz is a delight to listen to!

[@sjswitzer1]

“I mean it’s one banana Micheal. What could it cost? Ten dollars?” It was _right there_ and it’s delightful that he didn’t even realize it.

[@CarlosMorales-ht5oy]

I first discovered Prof. Strogatz 20+ years ago, when he published a series of weekly essays in the New York Times on math, from basic concepts (counting, numbers) to advanced (infinite numbers, differential geometry) over a period of three months. His ability to communicate complex ideas to the general public in a clear, simple manner impressed me greatly, and I have been a fan of his ever since. He even autographed one of his books for me when I attended one of his public lectures, at Princeton U. This video only confirms my great admiration for the guy.

[@nique7098]

Just read his latest book a few weeks ago, excited to listen to this!

[@mydroid2791]

Awesome "audio" NP2, your guest interviewee was very interesting to listen too (as are you guys). Thanks for that

[@simonsallen]

So you want a review, do you? Huh. I listened right to the end too. The quality and content are excellent. It is like having great minds sharing a room with me and feeding me with morsels of interest and understanding. Their passion is infectious. I had already bought his book and it is in that pile currently holding the ceiling up but I am going to have to wrest it from there and dive in. Brady, I really appreciate you making these videos. I know from some small experience in this field that the planning that goes into this is many times longer than the finished product. I will give Numberphile2 podcast a plug at my local Mathsjam tonight.

[@pedromanuelcastorena8525]

Best Podcast ever! I, too, got emotional at some point!

[@borg286]

Thanks for the great questions

[@BaronVonTacocat]

Very cool podcast, love the animation.

[@rahularvindshinde]

Yayyyyyyyy! Another one! Best podcasts ever.

[@sumitshingare7484]

Hii do you love mathematics matlab tujhe mathematician hona aage chal ke??

[@sumitshingare7484]

Aare yar I think tu marathi aahes

[@Berry_N]

Wonderful conversation

[@StephenFarthing]

I don’t know any calculus but I found this very interesting. May be I should try and learn it

[@HoneyGoats]

Even if you don't have time to take a course you can always learn about calculus!

[@reman3000]

basic calculus is easier than learning to code! its so satisfying to visualise and understand and it gives you a new outlook on a lot of things. hoping you will take some time out for calculus!

[@appleslover]

@@reman3000 can you recommend me anything i can start from?

[@davidgustavsson4000]

Physicists (and/or Swedes) do still use Newton's notation. I was taught it that way, and didn't understand the superiority of Leibniz' until university.

[@cogitoergosum2846]

Glad I read the book

[@fakename3474]

Strogatz says that newton used dots over the variables to notate derivatives. It's interesting because in nonlinear dynamics and chaos, which Strogatz wrote, he uses that same notation.

[@NoriMori1992]

You have to bring him back, Brady! You didn't ask him a million questions about his life and how he got into mathematics! Seriously, you'd be remiss not to bring him back. I was enjoying this immensely, but I kept feeling like something was missing, and it wasn't until near the end that I realized we're missing the biographical element!

[@stanleydodds9]

Brady is a pure mathematician at heart, confirmed. I'm so proud. Get your applied rubbish outta here

[@StreuB1]

Brady.......might you consider Dr. Payem (KZbinr and mathematician from UC Berkley). His energy and passion is unreal and he is insanely passionate about linear algebra and partial differential equations. I think he would be exceptional on a podcast!!!

[@rq4740]

How could you say something so controversial, yet so bold?

[@StreuB1]

Didn't even bat an eye. Refreshing in this day and age where everyone is "triggered" by everything. This podcast was more raw and passionate and for that, I found it even more exceptional.

[@rq4740]

@@StreuB1 You're a hero

[@ChrisChoi123]

I do have conflicted feelings about the applications vs pure maths stuff. Like on one hand i want to learn mathematics as far and as deep as i can, dabbling in the most obscure of theorems. but at the same time i feel like pure maths involves a lot of proofs, and historically i have always been the guy whose eyes sort of just glaze over the proofs that thr textbooks give for the theorems. also, i do get excited when im doing calculus problems abiyt the real world stuff like when calculating the rates of change in electric flux in a certain field or the populations of species after they have been shifted from equilibria. but once again, those problems can get pretty wordy so i do get tired of them

[@ChrisChoi123]

and btw, fantastic podcast. enjoyed every minute of it. felt like i was just let in on some great mathmatical secret because i had just started self teaching myself calculus about 6 days ago (and im already in integration by parts). to think i wouldnt even be able to enjoy this podcast in its full glory just a week ago is pretty crazy

[@Chubbywubbysandwich]

Pretty much story of my life

[@13thloona]

One of the reasons I love pure math is because nothing is taken for granted, everything can be (and is) questioned. If someone makes a proposition they'll have to provide a proof, otherwise its just speculation. Personally when reading a theorem I immediately ask myself why this is true, then either try to prove it or read the proof Another aspect I like is the motivation to generalize problems. A common structure of a problem is "prove that if a function **insert premise** then **insert premise**". For example, if a sequence f is bounded and increasing/decreasing then the sequence converges (this is called the monotone convergence theorem). Note it doesn't matter exactly what are the sequences, only that they're bounded and increasing/decreasing

[@ChrisChoi123]

ok, a year later, and now i fell head over heels in love with proofs and pure maths. i almost wanted to become a mathematician after watching ken ribet explain the history of fermat's last theorem and its proof

[@volvolakaemma9209]

An interesting way to understand why calculus was important for going the moon is to ask the counterfactual question, if we didn't have Calculus or a machinery like Calculus would we have reached the same goal? And the answer to that I feel is no.

[@dylanrambow2704]

45:37 Yes, the p-adic numbers are real. In fact, they're better than the real numbers because all of the p-adic absolute values are non-Archimedean, and therefore easier to work with than the Archimedean absolute value used to create the real numbers.

[@innerclass1509]

good podcast my cigga

[@skakdosmer]

You did ask him a good question about what he’d had to leave out of his book, and we got the clear impression that there was a lot, and that he regretted not to have been able to include a lot more. So I’m surprised that you did not ask him if he would then write a sequel with all of that! Why not?

[@bobbilderson8556]

Loved the episode. Ya seemed like you were making fun of Steven for getting emotional. I thought that wasn't very nice.

[@NatCo-Supremacist]

Podcast with Keith when

[@1996Pinocchio]

#ASMR

[@ThePrimevalVoid]

Not to say I didn't like this episode, it felt more about Strogatz's book and calculus rather than Strogatz himself which is what most of these episodes have been about so far. This seemed like a weird fusion of Numberphile and Objectivity rather than... you know... the Numberphile podcast. But that is me claiming that this podcast is about one particular thing which of course, I do not know, but it seems to break the trend that the podcast has followed thus far -- a trend I really enjoy.

[@StreuB1]

I think that this is just one podcast of many and I think part of the draw of a podcast is that they steer themselves at times. I actually kind of enjoy it vs. something that follows a hard line.

[@NoriMori1992]

I felt the same way. I really, really enjoyed this episode, but I really missed the biographical element that we've come to expect from the podcast. I hope Strogatz will be brought back for a second round.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Liebnitz plainly the opposite of Newton in "speaking the language of pure-math", in/of Logarithmic Time Duration Timing Calculus, because Newton demonstrated the ability of Reductionist Observation and Liebnitz made-of-making language symbolic representation of Integration, ..combining point identifier "Centre of Gravity = Time as Eternity-now Everything Interval, or Fluxion-Integral Quantum Operator Logic Fields Modulation Mechanism Singularity => potential reciprocation-recirculation here-now-forever.

[@michaelempeigne3519]

Where can one get this book talked about in video?

[@ooos2989]

Check the description.

[@davidwilkie9551]

The Calculus, Singularity-point matrix of resonant relative-timing potential motion. "Physics is Everything" made of making, perfect precision location mathematical "Vapourware" is a permanent perception paradox of instantaneous inside-outside holographic positioning. (Near as we can imagine to judge accurately, in i-reflection) Harmony in/of Mathematical Musical Measurement Disproof Methodology is WYSIWYG, self-defining QM-TIME wave-packaging Completeness. Euler's functional Flashed sync-duration connectivity re-cognition of Euclidean fractal point-line-circle conic-cyclonic coherence in relative-timing ratio-rate, 1-0-infinity harmonic precision defining "Accuracy" in Uncertainty Principle. The Multiverse Conception of phase-locked coherence-cohesion holographic sync-duration modulo axial-tangential orthogonality, Polar-Cartesian matrix in/of log-antilog Everything mass-energy-momentum Timing-spacing distribution.., etc, etc. Every angle is a "New Angle" of old Eternity-now Interval News, composed of pure-math relative-timing motion.., and so on.

[@topilinkala1594]

My question is: How come Newton was so myopic that he never looked his spectra through a magnifying glass?

[@petike01100]

Prinkipia???

[@ChrisChoi123]

yes, the c doesnt turn into s even though the i follows it

[@petike01100]

@@ChrisChoi123 Hmm, interesting. So it's an exception then? Or just how they said it at the time? I know the Romans always said /k/, but I'd imagine 17th century Englishmen saying /tʃ/ maybe? I would now say it with /ts/, but that's Erasmian Latin. Edit: Wikipedia says both /s/ and /k/ are possible.

[@gumikebbap]

did u just say Cigga??!

[@turkosicsaba]

Oh look at Brady, trying to be risque :)

[@fan5188]

1st 😄

[@testosteronic]

I do find the discussion of Newton etc. in this podcast as ~aamaaaazing geeeniuses~ quite tedious. I'm here for the maths. I get they're particularly clever, but they all had room to think because of the labour of other people, those people might've had as much to contribute if they'd had access to education to the degree Newton etc. did. We don't know because of how scarce education has been for the majority of people for the majority of history, the privilege of having such time and space to think is completely overlooked when we deify people in this way.

[@lovaaaa2451]

Lol ''AI will trump mathematics because there are too many dimensions to consider'', has mr Strogatz ever heard of Hilbert space?

[@whoeveriam0iam14222]

sigh. I keep clicking these videos thinking it's going to be an interesting video but there's only talking. I tend to lose focus when there's only talking without visuals =\

[@numberphile2]

The ones that are an upload of our podcast (which are uploaded here on our second, more hardcore channel) are pretty clearly labelled as podcasts!

[@NoriMori1992]

Why are you clicking on podcast episodes expecting there to be anything other than talking?

[@senc1971]

That's interesting. I keep clicking the other numberphile videos thinking they are going to be interesting podcasts but there's distracting video content I have to watch. I tend to lose focus when there are visuals competing with the audio that I was expecting.

[@michaelempeigne3519]

Stop making podcasts then so all KZbin subscribers can benefit