Almost all numbers have a 3 in them.

[Ravids]

The same show explaining the 3 thing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfEiJJGv4CE

That was an april fools joke...

 

[Buzzer]

But I think my eight year old nephew will prove right in the end.

I don't doubt it! And I'd be interested to read about it.

 

[BadFish]

That was an april fools joke...

Bugger, and there is me thinking it made sense (accepting that it is the same for any number of course). I will move back into my cave of mathematical darkness.

 

[Ravids]

Bugger, and there is me thinking it made sense (accepting that it is the same for any number of course). I will move back into my cave of mathematical darkness.

Yeah it's a math's channels idea of an april fools joke!

 

[Billy the Fish]

My cat's breath smells of cat food

 

[vegster]

This is how Hari Seldom got started.

 

[Buzzer]

It's just an obvious fact that almost all numbers contain almost all numbers, including 3.

Once again a big 'no'. Forget the idea of 'most' numbers. There are an infinity of numbers with just the number '1', likewise 2,3, 4, etc. Once you recognise there's no upper limit to any number then you'll see that you can't speak about 'most' numbers in this sense.

 

[BadFish]

Mathematicians should be allowed to make jokes.

Apart from

There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't"

I like that one.

 

[Buzzer]

And then once you've got your head around the infinity of counting numbers, there's the idea that there are other more complex infinities. Far beyond my ken, I get lost trying to get my head around Graham's Number but if you're interested this infinity is called aleph-null.

 

[Buzzer]

Mathematicians should be allowed to make jokes.

Apart from

There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't"

I like that one.

Did you hear about the constipated mathematician? He had a problem with his logs.


...but he finally worked it out with a pencil.

 

[BadFish]

And then once you've got your head around the infinity of counting numbers, there's the idea that there are other more complex infinities. Far beyond my ken, I get lost trying to get my head around Graham's Number but if you're interested this infinity is called aleph-null.

That is how I got to that video in the first place.

I enjoyed this one about 666 though..... and I understood it. Well I think i did until someone tells me it is a wind up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkZqFtYtqaI

 

[BadFish]

Did you hear about the constipated mathematician? He had a problem with his logs.


...but he finally worked it out with a pencil.

What did the 0 say to the 8?






nice belt

 

[Ravids]

It may be a joke, but it's still true isn't it - Almost all numbers genuinely do contain almost all numbers

When did I say it's true?

 

[Fef]

Did you hear about the constipated mathematician? He had a problem with his logs.


...but he finally worked it out with a pencil.

... when he was severely constipated, he had to work it out with axes!

 

[Brovion]

I don't doubt it! And I'd be interested to read about it.

Actually I think he's nearly ready to publish and he has some pretty solid reasoning. When I asked if it were possible to have a hoogan and one he replied 'No'. When I asked why not he said "Because it isn't."

 

[Brovion]

And then once you've got your head around the infinity of counting numbers, there's the idea that there are other more complex infinities. Far beyond my ken, I get lost trying to get my head around Graham's Number but if you're interested this infinity is called aleph-null.

I also like the idea that some infinities are 'bigger' than others. For example if you just count in whole numbers 1, 2, 3 etc obviously that sequence is infinite. But if you count in decimals, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 .... 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 ...... 3.0, 3.1 etc then that series is also infinite, but it's a 'bigger' infinity than the whole number series!

 

[Mackenzie]

[yt]0irL1M15DH8[/yt]

It is the magic number.

 

[Buzzer]

Actually I think he's nearly ready to publish and he has some pretty solid reasoning. When I asked if it were possible to have a hoogan and one he replied 'No'. When I asked why not he said "Because it isn't."

And he's only 8? Way to go! In all seriousness if he's already got his head around the idea that infinity (or in this case hoogan) + 1 doesn't mean anything then he's quite something.

 

[Gwylan]

The point about Graham's number is not that it's the largest possible number (it clearly isn't) but it's the largest number that has figured in a mathematical proof

Ronald Graham is an interesting bloke: he didn't only just come up with his number, he's also a juggler and invented the concept of the Erdős number. And for anyone interested in maths, the Paul Hoffman book about Erdős, The Man who Loved Only Numbers is well worth a read

 

[Buzzer]

I also like the idea that some infinities are 'bigger' than others. For example if you just count in whole numbers 1, 2, 3 etc obviously that sequence is infinite. But if you count in decimals, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 .... 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 ...... 3.0, 3.1 etc then that series is also infinite, but it's a 'bigger' infinity than the whole number series!

I don't think that's true unfortunately - or certainly not my understanding of infinity which is v limited. I think it's the same infinity as it's the infinity of counting numbers and the reason it's the same is because it's one-dimensional. You're just stretching out the same infinity. I seem to recall reading the next level of inifinity was thought to be the number of points in the 3 dimensional universe (which is incidentally the same number of points in a sugarcube).

Christ knows how these people that do this as a day job stay sane.