The Opposite of Infinity - Numberphile

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 7 вер 2015
  • Continuing to talk Infinitesimals, this time with Dr James Grime.
    See last week's video: • The Infinitesimal Mona...
    More links & stuff in full description below ↓↓↓
    Dividing by Zero: • Problems with Zero - N...
    James Grime: singingbanana.com
    Support us on Patreon: / numberphile
    NUMBERPHILE
    Website: www.numberphile.com/
    Numberphile on Facebook: / numberphile
    Numberphile tweets: / numberphile
    Subscribe: bit.ly/Numberphile_Sub
    Numberphile is supported by the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI): bit.ly/MSRINumberphile
    Videos by Brady Haran
    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...
  • Наука та технологія

КОМЕНТАРІ • 7 тис.

  • @regenald510
    @regenald510 7 років тому +10944

    I hated math in school but now i realize after watching these videos that it wasn't math I hated, it was the class.

    • @el_kks_4361
      @el_kks_4361 7 років тому +183

      +

    • @el_kks_4361
      @el_kks_4361 7 років тому +168

      +

    • @brianmerritt5410
      @brianmerritt5410 7 років тому +383

      Yeah, many people can't see the forest past the trees.

    • @NicksDomain101
      @NicksDomain101 7 років тому +322

      I always thought that if we learned math not from other or from a book, but invented math ourselves under proper guidance, than we could all understand math very easily.

    • @johnsmith2848
      @johnsmith2848 7 років тому +108

      But imagine if everyone had to be a genius to create 1000's of years of math progress. That system doesn't work, just like our own system.

  • @williammickelson403
    @williammickelson403 5 років тому +3443

    Outfinity

    • @HelloKittyFanMan.
      @HelloKittyFanMan. 5 років тому +19

      Haha!

    • @JamesM1994
      @JamesM1994 5 років тому +80

      Exfinity

    • @devonqi
      @devonqi 5 років тому +51

      outfoutity

    • @JamesM1994
      @JamesM1994 5 років тому +35

      @@devonqi interior:exterior infinity:exfinity

    • @devonqi
      @devonqi 5 років тому +7

      ​@@JamesM1994 i understand hehe.. im just makin a lil' lul bruv..

  • @_nines8270
    @_nines8270 3 роки тому +1544

    And then the engineer comes along and says
    "Eh it's within 10%, it's fine..."

    • @maheiramkhan
      @maheiramkhan 3 роки тому +13

      buhahhahaha! XD

    • @user-yb5if8kr3i
      @user-yb5if8kr3i 3 роки тому +215

      Pi=3
      e=3
      Pi=е
      I'm a civil engineer 😎

    • @Alguem387
      @Alguem387 3 роки тому +95

      @@user-yb5if8kr3i pi = 5 if it breaks it ain't my fault

    • @nickwilson3499
      @nickwilson3499 3 роки тому +60

      @@Alguem387 just round everything to 1 or 0. Pi = 1

    • @StefanVeenstra
      @StefanVeenstra 3 роки тому +59

      @@user-yb5if8kr3i You can have Euler's π but you may not eat it.

  • @serenes
    @serenes 3 роки тому +1775

    "let's say I have a circle"...draws lopsided potato
    edit: this is meant to be a humorous observation I have nothing against his theoretical circle

    • @gnochhuos645
      @gnochhuos645 3 роки тому +18

      Let’s see you try then

    • @TXejas19
      @TXejas19 3 роки тому +9

      😂😂😂

    • @EE-wp9qr
      @EE-wp9qr 3 роки тому +41

      you aint got nothing on spongebob bro

    • @DrWizardMother
      @DrWizardMother 3 роки тому +6

      😂😂😂

    • @ammyvl1
      @ammyvl1 3 роки тому +18

      He's a mathematician, not an artist

  • @frosty1433
    @frosty1433 8 років тому +4007

    My math teacher wouldn't accept work done in pen, and here this guy is using a permanent marker.

    • @michaelmapple8201
      @michaelmapple8201 7 років тому +69

      ummmm doing symbolic math is annoying AF to do with computer so why he doesn't accept pens? Our proffessor uses old projector and markers at uni

    • @rakodlartv4565
      @rakodlartv4565 7 років тому +172

      I think Shea means he wouldn't accept it in pen, but in pencil. There's a difference you know.

    • @frosty1433
      @frosty1433 7 років тому +49

      I don't remember why, but pen doesn't erase.

    • @143mailliw
      @143mailliw 7 років тому +19

      you cant erase water
      ink is a liquid

    • @TheRadioactiveFX
      @TheRadioactiveFX 7 років тому +178

      My teacher wouldn't accept work done in anything other than pen.

  • @NowhereManForever
    @NowhereManForever 8 років тому +3856

    I like this sneaky way of teaching your viewers calculus without saying the scary C word.

    • @Reydriel
      @Reydriel 8 років тому +217

      I was really enjoying that little calculus part XD

    • @NowhereManForever
      @NowhereManForever 8 років тому +366

      It was all calculus

    • @VicvicW
      @VicvicW 8 років тому +58

      Was it? Oooo interesting!

    • @oldcowbb
      @oldcowbb 8 років тому +93

      +Vicvic W calculus is always interesting

    • @RFC3514
      @RFC3514 8 років тому +47

      +NowhereManForever - 6:45

  • @elfinthekitchen
    @elfinthekitchen 3 роки тому +326

    "There are lots of infinitesmals."
    Understatement of the century.

    • @davidgumazon
      @davidgumazon 3 роки тому +6

      infinite of infinitesimals = infinite
      Uhhhhhhhhh.....................................................................................

    • @notfunny5021
      @notfunny5021 2 роки тому +4

      @@davidgumazon i dont think you got the joke

    • @elfinthekitchen
      @elfinthekitchen 2 роки тому +2

      @Demi AngelCat 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

    • @rohangeorge712
      @rohangeorge712 2 роки тому +7

      @@davidgumazon infinity infintesmals = 1

    • @user-kb8gm4tv4x
      @user-kb8gm4tv4x 2 роки тому +3

      there are as many infinitesmals as real numbers. number of hyperreals is also same as real numbers.

  • @stensoft
    @stensoft 4 роки тому +428

    Newton: I have invented calculus
    Leibniz: I have invented calculus
    Newton: That sounds derivative

    • @BritishBeachcomber
      @BritishBeachcomber 3 роки тому +71

      Leibniz: but integral to the problem...

    • @nidhinbenny7975
      @nidhinbenny7975 3 роки тому +16

      @@BritishBeachcomber Damn I was gonna say something like this...

    • @MrParry1976
      @MrParry1976 2 роки тому +13

      let's set a limit to the level they can go down fighting

    • @rohangeorge712
      @rohangeorge712 2 роки тому +3

      @@MrParry1976 it may never end, there maybe no limit

  • @keithwilson6060
    @keithwilson6060 8 років тому +769

    I love the way James says "noooomba."

  • @grandmastarflash
    @grandmastarflash 6 років тому +2200

    anyone that thinks they have found the worlds smallest number obviously haven't seen my bank balance

    • @thewarlord6529
      @thewarlord6529 5 років тому +8

      Grand masterflash lol

    • @blue9139
      @blue9139 5 років тому +5

      Lol

    • @JayTemple
      @JayTemple 5 років тому +119

      Mine's not small. It's large. And negative.

    • @kungfuskull
      @kungfuskull 5 років тому +32

      I was really expecting that to end in a genitals joke. :p

    • @jwm239
      @jwm239 5 років тому +7

      ...hmm... a finite candidate for smallest positive number is the reciprocal of a googleplex raised to the googleplex power a googleplex times.

  • @satanspotatoes
    @satanspotatoes 3 роки тому +65

    My man just drew the worst circle ever and then proceeded to draw the most perfect f i have ever seen.
    You can see my amazement at 7:59

  • @Vidi
    @Vidi 3 роки тому +93

    Dr. Grime's enthusiasm is immensely encouraging. Even the least curious among us must find his presentation engaging.
    I wonder whether any single person fortunate enough to have studied under his personal direction did not succeed. Bravo!

  • @jackie2691
    @jackie2691 8 років тому +352

    I love how all the people in these videos are so excited to talk about these things.

    • @jackie2691
      @jackie2691 8 років тому +1

      xD

    • @mafiosomath7888
      @mafiosomath7888 8 років тому +6

      +Jackie I'm always excited to tell my family this stuff but they look at me like, "AHHHHH!"

    • @jackie2691
      @jackie2691 8 років тому +1

      Mafioso Math haha! xP

    • @AlistairRiddochSHBEW
      @AlistairRiddochSHBEW 8 років тому

      +Jackie ditto.

    • @JorgetePanete
      @JorgetePanete 7 років тому +1

      so YOU HAVE A LOT OF this infiniTESimals...

  • @critstixdarkspear5375
    @critstixdarkspear5375 6 років тому +520

    The amount of theory in his brain has impinged so hard on on his motor functions that he can no longer draw shapes. Bless him for the sacrifices he has made.

  • @naysonbigelow6907
    @naysonbigelow6907 4 роки тому +346

    7:00
    He literally just summed up an entire semester of calculus in just a couple minutes
    This man is a genius

    • @SpeakShibboleth
      @SpeakShibboleth 3 роки тому +52

      Either you had a really terrible calculus class or you were a terrible student if that's all you learned in a semester.

    • @grariee
      @grariee 3 роки тому +9

      @Alt Account some mathematics teachers don't really know mathematical concepts that well . so , some of the students aren't exposed to this correct explanation . instead , the teachers only teach their students formulas of calculus .

    • @tronalddump2267
      @tronalddump2267 2 роки тому

      @Alt Account maybe it's a high school semester

  • @griplimit
    @griplimit 3 роки тому +122

    Infinitesimals: “I’m the smallest thing”
    Mandelbrot set: “hold my fractals!”

    • @lukedavis6711
      @lukedavis6711 3 роки тому

      I dont get it

    • @davidgumazon
      @davidgumazon 3 роки тому +2

      Weeb Fractals: Your fractals are so lewd...

    • @RoryStarr
      @RoryStarr 2 роки тому +2

      @@lukedavis6711 they are infinitely repeating designs. So, the smallest piece is dependent purely on resolution. In other words, theoretically, the fractal is infinitely recursive in the same area and not even really distinct in the way infinitesimals are.
      I don't have a math degree though, so maybe someone else will be a bit more accurate.

    • @fabianp.2986
      @fabianp.2986 2 роки тому

      The golden ratio: Amatuers

    • @Perririri
      @Perririri 2 роки тому +1

      Normie

  • @mva2997
    @mva2997 8 років тому +358

    4 AM on a work night, a video about the opposite of infinity? BRING IT

    • @AC_Blanco
      @AC_Blanco 8 років тому

      Planing at night to occupy more countries?

    • @johnathan1784
      @johnathan1784 8 років тому +2

      +ZeroSum Game Lmaooooo I see what you did there... must be Ukrainian aren't you?
      lml!

    • @tallevi2000
      @tallevi2000 8 років тому +2

      +ZeroSum Game boy, that escalated quickly!!

    • @GuiltyGearRockYou
      @GuiltyGearRockYou 8 років тому

      +Masha Vasilchikova haha good luck ;D

    • @TacoSt8
      @TacoSt8 8 років тому +1

      .l.

  • @13StJimmy
    @13StJimmy 4 роки тому +2162

    I’m pretty confident that if I had Dr. Grimes as a teacher I wouldn’t have switched majors and gone on to Calculus II

    • @lacroixemmanuel9684
      @lacroixemmanuel9684 4 роки тому +9

      Je

    • @cygnus3543
      @cygnus3543 4 роки тому +9

      can't stop the fire

    • @marcusderinger8892
      @marcusderinger8892 3 роки тому +9

      Why can't you just flatten the curve line

    • @marcusderinger8892
      @marcusderinger8892 3 роки тому +5

      You can find the distance of the curved line flatten it out and set it above to the lowest height point

    • @rahimeozsoy4244
      @rahimeozsoy4244 3 роки тому +14

      I had a horrible teacher but I am in calc 2. I studied myself, didnt listen teacher. İt is your failure. Blaming your teacher is not a solution.

  • @seven9399
    @seven9399 4 роки тому +14

    This guy is awesome he literally breathes life into Mathematics for those who hate maths, now find out it was probably just the class you was in.

  • @bogogaming7736
    @bogogaming7736 3 роки тому +33

    This is literally the basics of Calculus and I never really realized it until now
    Edit: I commented literally right before he started going over calculus. Wack

  • @RenoLuke
    @RenoLuke 5 років тому +1725

    Little known fact: George and Fred Weasley aren’t twins, they are in fact triplets and the third became a mathmagician

    • @someone4650
      @someone4650 5 років тому +168

      They’re twins again now.

    • @kekorulesatlab3133
      @kekorulesatlab3133 5 років тому +95

      @@someone4650 duuudde..... I was getting over it and now you've ruined it

    • @kingigzorn7680
      @kingigzorn7680 5 років тому +12

      That took a second

    • @n0ame1u1
      @n0ame1u1 5 років тому +69

      @@someone4650 They're still triplets; the death of one does not change the status of their birth.

    • @HN-kr1nf
      @HN-kr1nf 5 років тому +19

      @@n0ame1u1 THE QUAGMIRES

  • @TiagoSeiler
    @TiagoSeiler 8 років тому +52

    Teachers in school go: "Area of a circle is 2pi r^2". The kids ask why, and teachers just say "because it is". Two weeks after class everybody's already forgotten what the formula was. If we were taught WHY in school (just like this three minute segment at the start) we would never forget these things.

    • @EmperorZelos
      @EmperorZelos 8 років тому +21

      +Tiago Seiler Most students would still forget because most humans are ignorant peasents.
      I am hwoever pro-understanding education.

    • @KPopsicleSNSD
      @KPopsicleSNSD 8 років тому +5

      In this case... It kinda is. I mean Pi is a concept only understood when you understand that it is just a number derived from calculations.

    • @saintguel23
      @saintguel23 8 років тому

      +EmperorZelos ./.

    • @EmperorZelos
      @EmperorZelos 8 років тому

      Miguel Sambaan
      ?

    • @ulluubloo
      @ulluubloo 8 років тому +3

      +EmperorZelos I infer you are the type of person who contributes little to society, yet is in full capability to do so.

  • @greendeathification
    @greendeathification 3 роки тому +10

    I honestly had no idea what this person was talking about for the majority of this video, but I watched whole thing because I enjoyed watching his genuine enthusiasm for the topic and for math

  • @avishankarsardar6981
    @avishankarsardar6981 3 роки тому +37

    With teachers like him one can never hate maths

    • @TheFrewah
      @TheFrewah Місяць тому +1

      I always loved math but not necessarily all of my teachers

  • @giraculum9981
    @giraculum9981 4 роки тому +434

    10:00 "They discovered that Newton came up with it first. Leibniz then died..." what, like, immediately? That's harsh.

    • @Defectivania
      @Defectivania 4 роки тому +122

      they roasted him straight into the grave

    • @feralcatgirl
      @feralcatgirl 4 роки тому +20

      about three and a half years later, apparently

    • @maxwellsequation4887
      @maxwellsequation4887 3 роки тому +3

      dx/100

    • @MMaker738
      @MMaker738 3 роки тому +5

      Just correlation or causation - for some measurements we will probably never know...

  • @kakalimukherjee3297
    @kakalimukherjee3297 4 роки тому +1064

    8:58
    You are a damn genius. You taught why the derivative is the inverse of the integral and what slope has to do with area in less than 30 seconds

    • @erdo4321
      @erdo4321 4 роки тому +28

      what? he didnt say anything special.. what do you mean?

    • @Ztingjammer
      @Ztingjammer 4 роки тому +133

      @@erdo4321 my guess is just that James described it in such a clear and intuitive way. Always love videos with James!

    • @jordantheoneandonly3880
      @jordantheoneandonly3880 4 роки тому +7

      Ztingjammer same

    • @kakalimukherjee3297
      @kakalimukherjee3297 4 роки тому +60

      He basically said that when you differentiate an integral, what you get is the function. This makes clear the fact that differentiation and integration are, by definition, opposite operations

    • @samklemm822
      @samklemm822 4 роки тому +13

      Kakali Mukherjee 2nd Fundamental Theorem of Calculus ftw

  • @alperyoloyilmaz5388
    @alperyoloyilmaz5388 3 роки тому +26

    I recommend the book written by Keisler named Elementary Calculus. It uses infinitesimals to teach calculus.
    Also great video!
    I made a presentation and speech about this for school this year and seeing this made me really happy that the area is more popular than I thought.

  • @cedricgist7614
    @cedricgist7614 4 роки тому +5

    I enjoy the work of Numberphile - Dr Grimes et al. You guys really love your work and it's infectious. Thank you.

  • @manual1415
    @manual1415 7 років тому +352

    I will become a mathematician, just so i can write on brown paper with green sharpies.

    • @blue9139
      @blue9139 5 років тому +4

      Manuel Pilarczyk
      Lol

    • @HelloKittyFanMan.
      @HelloKittyFanMan. 5 років тому +7

      ...As long as you do it without using random commas like the one here between "mathematician" and "just."

    • @olipolygon
      @olipolygon 5 років тому +2

      @@HelloKittyFanMan. They said mathematician, not an English major 😊

    • @sherllymentalism4756
      @sherllymentalism4756 4 роки тому

      Did you?

  • @SuburbAllied
    @SuburbAllied 8 років тому +575

    When I started to watch this video I had a finite amount of brain cells. When returning to my math homework, I realized I actually had an infinitesimal amount of brain cells.

    • @georgeabreu6392
      @georgeabreu6392 7 років тому +18

      SuburbAllied Was this an intended pun?

    • @BlueSquad00
      @BlueSquad00 7 років тому +7

      you had to check the spelling of infinitesimal, didnt u

    • @discordant8543
      @discordant8543 6 років тому

      SuburbAllied well you have to be more specific, what are you classifying as brain cells? Just neurons? Or any cell in the brain? It's been est that the adult male human brain, at an average of 1.5 kg, has 86 billion neurons and 85 billion non-neuronal cells

    • @namelastname4077
      @namelastname4077 6 років тому

      hang in there, my friend. newton described himself as a little boy on the beach, that, every once in a while, found a stone that was a bit more shiny than the rest.

  • @topilinkala1594
    @topilinkala1594 2 роки тому +121

    In multivariable calculus one calculates with differentials as they were just ordinary variables and it all works out and is rigorous and consistent. But differentials are not numbers.

    • @alice_in_wonderland42
      @alice_in_wonderland42 2 роки тому +13

      Or are they?

    • @ninja8flash742
      @ninja8flash742 2 роки тому +20

      Vsauce music plays

    • @pokedart9001
      @pokedart9001 2 роки тому +3

      Enter... the *hyperreals.*

    • @heartache5742
      @heartache5742 2 роки тому

      deleuze borrows differentials from calculus
      he says that they are the infinitesimal blocks of change itself
      their relative magnitudes dictate the nature of encounters
      think of omicron notation, two functions come together and one may overwhelm the other
      and he says that the way they have been marginalised, the way "instantaneous change" has been termed an oxymoron instead of a generative paradox, is basically the attempt of state science to enforce thinking in terms of only being and identity
      as opposed to becoming and difference
      differentials will always be too small for state machinery, from this comes said machinery's imprecision, the inevitable "negligible" error to which pure difference has been relegated (dialecticians call this "negation")
      instead of putting up with this failure, the imperfection of the world compared to the actual numerical measurements with which we seek to capture it, deleuze says we have to finally start thinking of pure difference itself, because it is what drives being
      the way the derivative drives a function with infinitesimal steps

    • @bobob1292
      @bobob1292 Рік тому +3

      @@heartache5742 Sir this is a Wendy's

  • @SirMo
    @SirMo Рік тому +1

    OMG I love this! So many concepts explained in such a short succinct and clear manner.

  • @weebo1612
    @weebo1612 8 років тому +386

    Never Liked math until I started watching this channel.

    • @jay.ahre1
      @jay.ahre1 8 років тому

      Never liked math.

    • @Dark88Dragon
      @Dark88Dragon 7 років тому +1

      Hm Shii, I am the complete opposite. In elementary school I was by far the best, but when I changed to "gymnasium" I was seriously fcked up and dropped to average. -.-

    • @Dark88Dragon
      @Dark88Dragon 7 років тому

      Yeah no problem, I also love to play games like MGS ;)

    • @Dark88Dragon
      @Dark88Dragon 7 років тому

      It is indeed, Hideo Kojima ftw! ^^

    • @groszak1
      @groszak1 7 років тому

      I loved math but hated this channel as it's mostly incorrect.

  • @eaglehorse3323
    @eaglehorse3323 6 років тому +1089

    Isn't the opposite to infinity finity

    • @RWBHere
      @RWBHere 6 років тому +159

      Yes, but not in mathematics. Mathematicians are very strange people.

    • @tgbrowning3002
      @tgbrowning3002 6 років тому +104

      By that reasoning it should be out finity. :)

    • @grabern
      @grabern 6 років тому +2

      XD

    • @TheRandomBiscuit
      @TheRandomBiscuit 6 років тому +33

      Nah, it's ytinifni

    • @ManHeyuan
      @ManHeyuan 6 років тому +17

      The deception of logic:
      Take a wooden chopstick, with length measuring 20cm.
      Break it in half into 2 and we now get 2 sticks, each measuring 10cm in length.
      20 = 10 + 10
      20 - (10 + 10) = 0
      What is lost in-between? Absolutely nothing!
      Suppose you were required to draw a line in the center of the original stick before cutting it in half.
      Where would you draw the line, with nothing in-between?
      To know what 3-D is exactly, first imagine 1-D and 2-D in their purest forms.
      Can anything possibly exist in just a 1-dimensional or 2-dimensional form?
      If 1-D and 2-D were totally imaginary, how real could a 3-D object be? 🤔
      Are you able to reconcile 3-dimensional concept with reality?
      Theory: The entire Universe began from a single point.
      Now, what is the smallest possible point?
      It is impossible to reconcile this theory with logic as well.
      Can you draw a "perfect circle" using a compass, without the smallest possible point?
      Question nothing, to question everything. 🙂

  • @rogersledz6793
    @rogersledz6793 3 роки тому +5

    Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!

  • @luctapia
    @luctapia 2 роки тому +2

    Wow, i remember watching these videos as a kid, not understanding literally anything, now im on calc 3 and this is a really nice summary!!!! It really shows your teaching abilities when you can captivate a kid with no knowledge or conception of calculus and do it again to the same person many years later!!!!! Thank you

  • @infinitejinpachi
    @infinitejinpachi 7 років тому +1029

    the opposite of infinity is my will to live

  • @FishKungfu
    @FishKungfu 8 років тому +107

    It'd be cool if there were Numberphile action figures, or even just 3D printed figurines of 3D full body scans of our Numberphiles Heros. This would definitely include a "Brady" with a replaceable exploding head for every time his mind is blown.

    • @FernieCanto
      @FernieCanto 8 років тому +18

      +Fish Kungfu I feel there should be action figures for all of Brady's channel: James for Numberphile, Prof. Polyakoff for Periodic Videos, Prof. Moriarty for Sixty Symbols... Ooh, this would be so fun.

    • @tirsoacuna1356
      @tirsoacuna1356 8 років тому +2

      +Fernie Canto I'd definitely buy a figurine of James!

    • @MarkusHobelsberger
      @MarkusHobelsberger 8 років тому +2

      +Fernie Canto Don't forget the legendary Keith from the Royal Society from Objectivity ;)

    • @umbreon8527
      @umbreon8527 8 років тому +2

      +Fernie Canto CLIFF. STOLL.

    • @AstaMuratti
      @AstaMuratti 8 років тому +1

      +Fish Kungfu it would be a great idea for kickstarter project) definitely for it)))

  • @adibanti
    @adibanti 2 роки тому +2

    Interestingly using the slices underneath a curve in calculus is a very similar concept to how we record audio digitally. You take little rectangular chunks of the sound wave in exactly that way missing little bits at a time and convert them to bits of information. Any wonder why 8bit music sounds like that? It's because the rectangles used are really big so much of the sound is missing. Science and maths will always be best mates.

  • @philh4807
    @philh4807 3 роки тому +6

    Even though I have been out of college since 1989 when I got my BS in chemistry, this guy might have made me change my major to math.

  • @MultiWafflemaster
    @MultiWafflemaster 8 років тому +907

    Wouldn't the mathematical opposite of infinity be negative infinity? I would consider an infinitesimal to be the inverse of infinity.

    • @numberphile
      @numberphile  8 років тому +771

      +MultiWafflemaster I feel like I get what he was saying.... What is the opposite of the "biggest thing" - it is the "smallest thing" or "negative the biggest thing".
      I guess it is like what is the opposite of being unimaginably rich? Is it being really poor, or being in debt?
      Both arguments hold water for me.
      The problem with "negative the big thing" is that it still has a kind of great magnitude in my mind.
      Just one man's musings.

    • @TheGingeize
      @TheGingeize 8 років тому +307

      +MultiWafflemaster Infinity is a concept, not a number. Surely the opposite of something too big to measure is something too small to measure?

    • @L0LWTF1337
      @L0LWTF1337 8 років тому +78

      The inverse of an number depends on the group you are in. If it is addition, then the negative value is the inverse. If it is multiplication it is one divided by the value. If it is NxN matrix then you inverse the matrix. If it is MxN matrix, then you need a pseudo inverse.

    • @lachiagnew4292
      @lachiagnew4292 8 років тому +26

      +MultiWafflemaster No it wouldn't because they both have the same magnitude but in different directions. If that makes sense? Like if I asked what would be the opposite of the word huge you wouldn't say oh negative huge!

    • @nal8503
      @nal8503 8 років тому +4

      +Lachi Agnew Read +L0LWTF1337 's post. Both answers are right, due to lack of further specification.

  • @folumb
    @folumb 6 років тому +107

    Thanks for giving Leibniz some shine, he also has some very interesting philosophical works if you enjoy logic employed in a different way

  • @sageriver7669
    @sageriver7669 3 роки тому +15

    "You're not fooling me Sonny...It's Turtles all the way down!!"

  • @josephjackson1956
    @josephjackson1956 2 роки тому +10

    I find it amazing that Newton and Leibniz both came up with Calculus independently.

    • @MuffinsAPlenty
      @MuffinsAPlenty 2 роки тому +13

      This actually happens a decent amount throughout the history of science and mathematics.
      Newton and Leibniz were both very intelligent people, but people today often view them as some sort of super mega geniuses who developed calculus all on their own. The state of mathematics when they both lived was ripe for the development of calculus. If Newton and Leibniz had not done it, someone else probably would have within the next 20 years or so anyway.
      The idea behind integrals (the method of exhaustion, like what is shown in this video to get the area of a circle) existed for millennia before Newton and Leibniz. About 50 years before Newton, René Descartes introduced coordinate geometry, which was a fundamental step toward developing calculus. Around the same time Pierre de Fermat posed the question of how to find the tangent line to a curve at any given point. Within about 20 years before Newton, James Gregory gave the first sort of argument for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus - it was a highly geometric argument which connected areas under curves with the tangent lines of those curves. Later, Isaac Barrow developed the tool of infinitesimals and used it to solve Fermat's tangent line problem. Barrow also gave the first rudimentary proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus using his infinitesimal techniques.
      Then we get to Newton. Isaac Newton was a student of Isaac Barrow and learned about infinitesimals (and how they relate to tangent lines and the big connection in the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus) from Barrow. Essentially, Newton was in exactly the right place at the right time to develop calculus. Pretty much all of the requisite tools had been developed right before he started his studies, and he learned directly how to use the last necessary tool from the very person who developed it. Newton saw how to put these tools together in a meaningful way, and more importantly, saw an application (physics).
      While Leibniz doesn't have the tools handed to him on a silver platter like Newton did, Leibniz still lived in the historical context where people knew about the method of exhaustion and already had coordinate geometry. People cared about Fermat's problem, and knew about Gregory's connection between area and slope. All it takes is for Leibniz to do the same thing Barrow did and just imagine the infinitely small and then run with it.
      This is what I mean when I say that the mathematics community was "ripe" for the development of calculus. The general trend of mathematical thinking and interest were moving toward calculus anyway and both Newton and Leibniz happened to be the right people living in the right places at the right time.
      Math and science are rarely developed solely by lone mega geniuses.
      (Another example of this phenomenon is the theory of relativity. Although we credit Einstein for the theory, he also lived in a context where people were studying and developing the same sorts of things. There are many mathematicians including Henri Poincaré and David Hilbert whose ideas about relativity were instrumental to getting the full theory. Yet science history tends to wipe away the contributions of everyone but Einstein and paint a faulty narrative of Einstein as a lone super mega genius who did everything without anyone's help. No, he lived in a context which was ripe for his ideas.)

  • @llucer3505
    @llucer3505 6 років тому +1158

    '8' is the opposite of infinity ;-)

    • @loginid7108
      @loginid7108 6 років тому +23

      or it is rotation at 90deg ( counter or clockwise)

    • @damplamp
      @damplamp 6 років тому +62

      thatsthejoke.jpeg

    • @tjw_
      @tjw_ 6 років тому +38

      infinity * i = 8

    • @Russtopia
      @Russtopia 5 років тому +10

      ... ∞i (complex infinity) ? :)

    • @XanderFenikkusu
      @XanderFenikkusu 5 років тому +7

      Devendra S wooooooosh

  • @jakeequilar5476
    @jakeequilar5476 8 років тому +102

    I saw what you did there at 4:22 Numberphile

    • @jakeequilar5476
      @jakeequilar5476 8 років тому

      +stingersplash16 watch it again, pay real close attention to the video and you'll see it!

    • @sorlag110
      @sorlag110 8 років тому +1

      +Jake Equilar kepler 39? the planetary system?

    • @thomask.2726
      @thomask.2726 8 років тому +1

      +Jake Equilar Who is this guy having the number 39 on his back?

    • @madokaonline
      @madokaonline 8 років тому +3

      +Thomas Korbacher indeed who is he? O _ o

    • @thomask.2726
      @thomask.2726 8 років тому +2

      warwick capper haha

  • @Vethreth
    @Vethreth 4 роки тому +3

    This is why we need passionate people to teach us instead of teachers with no passion.
    I wish I had access to such quality content during my scholarship (and that my English would allow me to understand, of course).
    Anyway, it's still really interesting. I didn't know I'd actually have fun learning about mathematics.
    Thanks for this gem! =)

  • @shahrukhs1637
    @shahrukhs1637 3 роки тому +3

    Before starting video, I was thinking, oh that's so simple. This guy's going to teach us about limits. Lim(1/X) ,X→∞
    Then as the video started, "oh is it something different? Seems like he is going towards integration
    by the end of the video, I'm happy, and also realized I'm rusty. Thankyou

  • @BearshiMisnes
    @BearshiMisnes 5 років тому +79

    "I'm so rich, I can throw pennies around."
    Great job Dr. Grime

    • @Perririri
      @Perririri 2 роки тому

      One pence coins, not one cent coins.

  • @d4nielDayZContent
    @d4nielDayZContent 8 років тому +480

    I love this guy. - Am I alone?

  • @mayursoowamber7549
    @mayursoowamber7549 3 роки тому +2

    I wish I had this man during Uni 😭 The amount of understanding that just occurred in just 15 mins

  • @Jameshazfisher
    @Jameshazfisher 2 роки тому +2

    I prefer the circle area proof that rearranges the wedges in an alternating zig-zag to form a rectangle, with one side r and the other side pi*r. It's a cleaner proof because it doesn't skew the wedges, and the area of a rectangle is slightly more trivial than the area of a triangle.

  • @areadenial2343
    @areadenial2343 4 роки тому +47

    An interesting thing I found on Wikipedia is the projectively extended real line, where the number line is wrapped around into a circle, and the point where they meet is infinity, which is neither positive nor negative. In this system, x/0 is equal to infinity, and x/infinity is equal to zero. The coolest part is that it would also work with complex numbers if you wrapped the plane of real and complex numbers into a sphere, which is the Riemann sphere.

    • @R0llingHard
      @R0llingHard 2 роки тому +1

      I always thought x/infinity would be equal to infinitesimal

    • @DanielRossellSolanes
      @DanielRossellSolanes 11 місяців тому +2

      @@R0llingHard and that's because infinitesimal IS equal to zero.
      the usual definition of infinitesimal is "a number that's as close as possible to zero without being zero" problem is that such number can't exist since we can always get the average between zero and whatever number you believe to be infinitesimal.
      but, if you define infinitesimal as "the smallest non-negative irrational" then, infinitesimal = 0.
      the only difference between both definitions is the inclusion of 0 and that you can't use the average trick anymore.
      the issue of the cylinder, shown in the video, having volume while it's cross sections have heigh zero can be explained because we have infinite cross sections so they add to 0*infinity (which isn't defined)

    • @edwardpotereiko
      @edwardpotereiko 9 місяців тому +3

      The infinitesimal is not equal to zero as the hyper reals can show. And the infinitesimal is also not a number, an all-too-common misconception.

    • @MuffinsAPlenty
      @MuffinsAPlenty 9 місяців тому

      @@DanielRossellSolanes "the usual definition of infinitesimal is "a number that's as close as possible to zero without being zero""
      Usual definition in which context? I have typically seen infinitesimals described as something like "positive numbers which are smaller than every positive real number." But I may not have experienced the same contexts as you, so I'm genuinely curious!

    • @omnipresentcatgod245
      @omnipresentcatgod245 8 місяців тому

      ​@@edwardpotereikoWe're talking about standard real numbers system, No field extensions are related to it.

  • @General12th
    @General12th 7 років тому +34

    I loved that demonstration of the fundamental theorem of calculus. Absolutely beautiful and simple and excellent!

    • @General12th
      @General12th 7 років тому +1

      Valera 8 No, I don't have to do anything.

    • @largolagrande7837
      @largolagrande7837 7 років тому

      No estaría 'troleando' a nadie, sólo escribiendo mal. 2 pequeñas correcciones si me permites: *I'm really sorry *Not Spanish but Spaniard. Saludos.

  • @PC_Simo
    @PC_Simo Рік тому +2

    6:20 You can’t get an *_ABSOLUTE_* volume; but, assuming the heights are same for those 2 stacks, you can get a *_RELATIVE_* or *_COMPARATIVE_* volume (”Stack A > Stack B” / ”Stack A = Stack B” / ”Stack A < Stack B”). Actually, those 2 stacks of pennies *_DON’T_* have the same height: The straight cylinder has 19 pennies, while the jumbled-up cylinder has 16 pennies. I *_KNEW_* they weren’t quite the same.

  • @stephenlandrum2262
    @stephenlandrum2262 4 роки тому +4

    The entire thing I was just waiting for the next time he says “area” he holds out the a and it’s awesome

  • @meyupme9854
    @meyupme9854 5 років тому +147

    Did any one noticed the picture that got mixed with Kepler's photo in 4:22 XD

    • @robertbell2159
      @robertbell2159 4 роки тому +38

      Warrick Capper, an AFL star and meme

    • @meyupme9854
      @meyupme9854 4 роки тому +7

      @@robertbell2159 thanks for the clarification dude

    • @McAllen07
      @McAllen07 3 роки тому

      @@meyupme9854 This isn't the only time I've seen his picture show up in an academic video. He shows up the same way in the Teaching Company series about the American Civil War I think.

    • @adamestrada7610
      @adamestrada7610 3 роки тому

      A little late but I think this is also a clever reference to Kepler-39, 39 being the number on the jersey worn by Warrick Capper. Could be coincidental, tho.

  • @technoultimategaming2999
    @technoultimategaming2999 4 роки тому +782

    Smallest possible number that's still bigger than 0....
    Just look at my exam results

  • @daveayerstdavies
    @daveayerstdavies 3 роки тому +3

    If you alternate the orientation of the small triangles, you don't need to stretch them. You end up with a regular rectangle with height r and base pi r. Simpler and more convincing than the stretched triangles method.

  • @thalesn
    @thalesn 2 роки тому +2

    Watching this video made me go back... Back to my first semester in college, when they threw us into a Calculus class without any care. I didn't hate Calculus, but Calculus is full of concepts that aren't intuitive at all. This video does a great job at explaining why those concepts aren't intuitive.
    I failed that class and, in the very next semester, I took the class again and then I aced it. I didn't suddenly got smarter, I just understood those very basic (albeit not intuitive) concepts.

  • @ThomasGodart
    @ThomasGodart 8 років тому +7

    Thank you James Grime for saying that 1/infinitesimal is infinity, which means that the other Numberphile videos about 1/infinity equals 0 are false! The good way to see infinity is that one that you just used: 1/infinity equals infinitesimal and defines infinitesimal, and 1/0 having no answer

    • @douggwyn9656
      @douggwyn9656 8 років тому

      +Thomas Godart Except that it is wrong.

    • @MoltenMetal613
      @MoltenMetal613 8 років тому +3

      +Thomas Godart lim x-->infinity 1/x=0
      lim x-->0 (+) 1/x=infinity
      lim x-->0 (-) 1=x= - infinity
      Infinity is not a number, meaning that problems that involve it have to use limits.

    • @douggwyn9656
      @douggwyn9656 8 років тому

      +BlackSkullRacer613 One-sided limits are often useful. Since the whole infinitesimal/illimited etc. discussion has been confined to the nonnegative numbers, the limit while approaching 0 from above is relevant.

  • @Quasihamster
    @Quasihamster 6 років тому +51

    "There's soomthing about it that makes you ooncoompfable!"
    Love that accent :D

  • @TimpBizkit
    @TimpBizkit Рік тому +1

    You even find infinitesimal spaces on graphs, for example the x and y axes on a graph of y = 1/x is in an infinitesimal space that doesn't intersect the curve at any point. If you moved them even slightly, they would intersect the curve but they don't.

  • @BadassBeazly
    @BadassBeazly 3 роки тому +11

    My comprehension of the maths is at best, very rudimentary. I acknowledge that mathematics IS the universe(s). I admire those who are able to comprehend and play with numbers so easily. Yours is a vision that I cannot see, but I can "feel" this beauty and can admire it from afar. Thank you for sharing your passion.

  • @BarendNieuwoudtZA
    @BarendNieuwoudtZA 5 років тому +81

    Honestly if it was explained to me this way, I would actually have understood what I was doing at uni

  • @ImJustACowLol
    @ImJustACowLol 8 років тому +48

    The opposite of infinity is finity. The end.

    • @MadaxeMunkeee
      @MadaxeMunkeee 8 років тому +7

      Cool.

    • @Th3BlackLotus
      @Th3BlackLotus 8 років тому +6

      +MadaxeMunkeee story

    • @maj.peppers3332
      @maj.peppers3332 8 років тому +6

      +Leon Gerity Bro

    • @tristanscott6774
      @tristanscott6774 8 років тому +2

      +ImJustACowLol Sir you are a true genius.

    • @ImJustACowLol
      @ImJustACowLol 8 років тому

      +This Could Be You!!! Thank you, thank you. I just received word that I am nominated for the Nobel Price of Mathematics. It is the first time such a nobel price is going to be given, as prior to this date the Nobel Price for Mathematics did not exist yet. Awesome, right?

  • @LLO227
    @LLO227 3 роки тому

    Man this video still rocks the cerebrum after 5 years! Needed this refreshing thinking exercise.

  • @dollarbill8959
    @dollarbill8959 3 роки тому +1

    Thank you for that knowledge, I gave never heard about hyperreals before.

  • @Magnogen
    @Magnogen 6 років тому +305

    I think I understand...
    Is it:
    infinitesimal = 1/∞
    ???

    • @user-rd7jv4du1w
      @user-rd7jv4du1w 4 роки тому +45

      Basically

    • @brianheight
      @brianheight 4 роки тому +18

      That's what I always thought, and the only reason I came to the comments!

    • @MsAlfred1996
      @MsAlfred1996 4 роки тому +80

      NO
      You can not divide by infinity, it is not a number

    • @4ka07_muhammadrizky
      @4ka07_muhammadrizky 4 роки тому +46

      @@MsAlfred1996 you are right it can only happen in limits

    • @paulpaul5972
      @paulpaul5972 4 роки тому +7

      Sorry for my bad English!
      0,0=infinitesimal
      ∞=infinitely large
      0=naught
      ᴑ=impossible

  • @hiimapop7755
    @hiimapop7755 5 років тому +136

    "...cos I'm so rich I can throw my pennies around."
    Ahh taking quotes in 2019, amirite?

    • @mk_rexx
      @mk_rexx 3 роки тому +2

      But if I throw my pennies around, I would get arrested.

  • @Femaiden
    @Femaiden 3 роки тому +2

    this is something i never thought about, but before watching the video, the first thing I thought of was
    0.0 with an infinite number of 0's after it, but with a 1 at the end.
    this theoretical number has a 1 at the very end, but it also has an infinite number of zeroes in between, so you would never ever reach the 1 and yet somehow must be able to reach the 1 if you went far enough because the 1 is there, yet somehow unreachable, but reachable at the same time.
    now to actually watch the video and see how close my imagination is to what the video actually says. . .

  • @abdi8543
    @abdi8543 3 роки тому +2

    Because of him i changed my major. I was only 14 years old when i had to make the decision, now 3 years later iam happy i met him.

  • @aliaqarahimi5410
    @aliaqarahimi5410 4 роки тому +10

    Whenever im super tired or need sth to entertain my soul, i watch the clips of this channel. Thank you :-)

  • @arandomchannel1101
    @arandomchannel1101 5 років тому +172

    Infinity can't be rotated the opposite way... homever if you rotate it 90 degrees it will become 8.

    • @jimbo9129
      @jimbo9129 4 роки тому +8

      damm.. mind blown. halarious tho

    • @griseld
      @griseld 4 роки тому +1

      this dude just broke math

    • @nickpro8116
      @nickpro8116 4 роки тому +1

      But a ninety degree rotation is multiplying by i

  • @TimpBizkit
    @TimpBizkit Рік тому

    That is the way a lot of area/volume things are calculated for circular shapes. E.g. cutting a circle into really skinny isosceles triangles such that you can assume the curve is straight and the height is the radius, then laying them out in a line 2*pi*r long and using the triangle area formula to get 2*pi*r*r*1/2
    Similarly for a sphere, you can use lots of tall skinny pyramids or cones pointing into the centre and using the 1/3 height x base area (which tots up to 4*pi*r^2) to get 4/3*pi*r^3

  • @comochinganconesto
    @comochinganconesto 3 роки тому +1

    I used stuff like this in calculus and physics way too much, didn't even know that they were a legitimate math concept just that it kinda worked and made certain problems easier to understand.

  • @oskarpaulander4027
    @oskarpaulander4027 4 роки тому +16

    Happy to see a video about this!
    Wrote my bachelor's thesis on this very subject. It's an interesting area of mathematics that I hope will get more visibility. Specifically we looked at Picard's theorem and how much simpler the proof is by using non standard analysis (I'm far from competent enough to understand the standard proof).
    It's beautiful, massively useful and intuitive in a way that limits aren't.
    That being said. Both are needed

  • @KaneCowboyCo
    @KaneCowboyCo 8 років тому +47

    mathematics such as calculus are difficult to many because too many have been taught since they first entered grade school that math is a memorization game.

    • @RMeitzen
      @RMeitzen 8 років тому +3

      +pantheryou Not really, if you understand the principle you don't need to memorize anything.

    • @laughy38247357075834
      @laughy38247357075834 8 років тому

      It's not difficult. It's only difficult if you don't want to learn it

    • @KaneCowboyCo
      @KaneCowboyCo 8 років тому +9

      R. Rain re-read my post. what you have typed is precisely my point.

    • @JITCompilation
      @JITCompilation 6 років тому +1

      +pantheryou i absolutely agree. Math is really just logic and philosophy. If you understand the logic behind it without the numbers, then you can do the math but most people believe that math is a dark magic where stuff just gets pulled out of mathematicians hats

  • @mr.soundguy968
    @mr.soundguy968 2 роки тому +1

    In honor of John Conway, who invented surreal numbers, there is an inverse cardinal 1/omega which is smaller than every positive real number, yet not the smallest among cardinals. It uses Dedekind cuts and some partial order which goes beyond my imagination. But fascinating

  • @precumming
    @precumming 2 роки тому +1

    Epsilon is used in programming for dealing with floating point numbers where (0.1+0.2)-0.3 does not equal 0 but the absolute value is less than epsilon. But be aware that floating point errors compound so you really want to avoid programs where a floating point number is modified where you want to know if it is almost an integer accurately, and never use it for currency always use an integer and then translate it to a presentational float (like 123 pence converted to £1.23 but that 1.23 is never operated on).

  • @newtonrhapson1453
    @newtonrhapson1453 7 років тому +11

    The problem of Math teacher in school are they teach only about calculating instead appliance and conceptual meaning.
    I'm not fond with Math in HS until go to college and learn about actual calculus from my lecturer and how they can be discovered

  • @Tymon0000
    @Tymon0000 8 років тому +202

    Who is the guy 4:21 with 39 on his back?

    • @ObeseYeti
      @ObeseYeti 8 років тому +8

      +Tymon0000 I think it's Capper

    • @ikbeneenpop1
      @ikbeneenpop1 8 років тому

      +ObeseYeti Kepler*

    • @ObeseYeti
      @ObeseYeti 8 років тому +33

      ikbeneenpop1 The guy with the 39 on his back is Warwick Capper

    • @Tymon0000
      @Tymon0000 8 років тому +10

      ObeseYeti
      Do you happen to know why he is there?

    • @ITR
      @ITR 8 років тому +6

      +Tymon0000 Pun on the name, maybe?

  • @Supertimegamingify
    @Supertimegamingify 3 роки тому

    I was wondering about this earlier, thanks!

  • @thomasking7659
    @thomasking7659 3 роки тому +8

    Thank you Fred Weasley, these videos are really interesting.

  • @teekanne15
    @teekanne15 8 років тому +8

    the feeling of "it works for daily usage but somehow im not happy cause I disregarded a little fact" is what bothered me in school so much

    • @gimpdoctor8362
      @gimpdoctor8362 8 років тому +3

      +teekanne15 well limits get around the error by just essentially saying "i bet that you can't make that error ever give me a wrong answer because i can always draw enough triangles" hence the standard epsilon-delta proofs.

    • @douggwyn9656
      @douggwyn9656 8 років тому +1

      +Ben Nutley What we actually do is the equivalent of "Tell me how much error in the result you will allow, and we'll find a small enough delta (or large enough N, in some cases), that our procedure will be at least that accurate."

  • @tweedyburd007
    @tweedyburd007 4 роки тому +167

    7:00 unknowingly makes pi

    • @anushrao882
      @anushrao882 4 роки тому +4

      I see it!?!

    • @BroArmyCommander
      @BroArmyCommander 3 роки тому +4

      @@KaliFissure what is the what?

    • @Bollibompa
      @Bollibompa 3 роки тому +2

      @@KaliFissure
      No. The Planck length is a fundamental metric of the dimension of length. Asking for an opposite is a non-sequitur.

    • @dominictwaites2721
      @dominictwaites2721 3 роки тому +2

      How? I don't see it

    • @Seth_M-T
      @Seth_M-T 2 роки тому +2

      @dominic twaites When he draws the two outer vertical lines, it sort of looks like the symbol for pi. :)

  • @sacielo
    @sacielo 2 роки тому +1

    "Inifintesimal" is also a concept in calculus. Not diectly connected to real numbers, but to functions. A function is said to be an infinitesimal to another if the limit of their ratio is 0. Then you can also define to what order

  • @DanielDaniel-xz2yp
    @DanielDaniel-xz2yp 3 роки тому

    At the end when he talked about fans of the system (and that people that use it say its better)
    it kinda felt like i was watching a review for some math theories and i'm about to buy one

  • @Alorand
    @Alorand 5 років тому +186

    So how does this change that old problem of: "Is 1 equal to 0.9999-repeating?"
    If they are an infinitesimal apart then in the hyper-real system they are not equal?

    • @quanjano382
      @quanjano382 5 років тому +108

      they aren’t an infinitesimal apart, they are the same number. it is just an artifact of a base 10 number system.

    • @ar_xiv
      @ar_xiv 5 років тому +31

      .3 repeating is what? What about that number multiplied by 3?

    • @klikitzsmith8416
      @klikitzsmith8416 5 років тому +5

      @@ar_xiv never thought of it like that

    • @vierajohaninecova3998
      @vierajohaninecova3998 5 років тому +60

      Ok so we all agree that for every integer execpt zero n/n = 1. So 1/3 = 0.3 repeating. 2/3 = 0.6 repeating. So 3/3 has to be 0.9 repeating right. But every n/n = 1.... thus 3/3 = 1 = 0.9 repeating

    • @99Dragonborn
      @99Dragonborn 5 років тому +20

      Yea, I don't like that saying. Topologically speaking, 0.9 repeating is in the open interval (0,1), while 1 is not.

  • @morphman86
    @morphman86 6 років тому +55

    2 years later and I finally realize why the base of the triangle isn't infinitely long.
    It has infinitesimals which is an infinite number of slices. Each slice can be sliced in two again, meaning you can never run out of slices, so why isn't the base infinitely long?
    Well, every time you slice the slices, they'll be half the size, so the length of the base have not changed at all. Stacking two triangles with a base of 1 is the same as stacking one of length 2 or 4 of length 0.5, so it doesn't matter how many times you split it, the length will always be the same. So the length is the same, the height is always the radius and therefore the area will not be infinite.

    • @scottb9997
      @scottb9997 6 років тому +4

      the triangles go around the circle so when you add up the triangles bases it equals the circumferences of the circle
      so imagine the circumference is 3
      the 3 is divided infinitely so the base of each triangle is 3/(inf) now to form the triangle we want to add all the base together and because the base of each triangle is the same we can multiply by how many triangles there is which is infinity
      so we get (3/inf)*inf the 2 infinitys cancel and we are left with 3

    • @HuchiaZ
      @HuchiaZ 5 років тому +1

      Welcome to the Super Task

    • @abhiramababa
      @abhiramababa 5 років тому +5

      Welcome to convergent infinite series. Heard of Zeno's paradox?

  • @siamvat
    @siamvat 2 роки тому +1

    Infinitesimals, yeah!
    I love them, they are just like single points on a line, comparing them to whole numbers is just like comparing whole numbers to infinity, or omegas. Infinitesimals are the opposite of counting Alephs and The Inaccesible cardinals.
    We are reaching out to discover how big can mathematic really be. It's huge.

  • @priyanshupokhriyal1677
    @priyanshupokhriyal1677 2 роки тому +5

    I used to hate maths until I discovered your channel, thank you! ♥️

  • @SlenderMiner99
    @SlenderMiner99 6 років тому +407

    Before watching the entire video:
    ∞/1 = ∞
    1/∞ = [opposite of ∞]

    • @Schradermusic
      @Schradermusic 6 років тому +25

      My guess is 10 to the power of minus infinite.

    • @animejames7887
      @animejames7887 6 років тому +49

      Actually this is invers of infinity

    • @fayezbayzidify
      @fayezbayzidify 6 років тому +3

      I was going to say the same lol

    • @andrewdavis4295
      @andrewdavis4295 6 років тому +9

      Thats the recipicle of infinity

    • @mihaispan4765
      @mihaispan4765 6 років тому +5

      You can’t divide by infinity

  • @leonardoacuna8970
    @leonardoacuna8970 7 років тому +94

    Am I the only person who spends his days watching videos like this not knowing wtf these people are talking about but still liking them

    • @valentinaescalante4074
      @valentinaescalante4074 6 років тому +1

      Leonardo Acuna you are not alone, bro

    • @grovergodwin3649
      @grovergodwin3649 6 років тому +2

      Maybe theres apart of you that dose know

    • @loopyllama6897
      @loopyllama6897 6 років тому

      Leonardo Acuna same here ^•^

    • @dotherightthingandy5217
      @dotherightthingandy5217 6 років тому +1

      I like to pretend I understand.... I just enjoy watching somebody enjoy such a mad subject. He's great!

    • @ryan0348
      @ryan0348 6 років тому

      Leonardo Acuna
      I'm with u

  • @Narutodumbo111
    @Narutodumbo111 3 роки тому +7

    "1/0 is not infinity, we would never do that"
    Me studying stability of transfer functions using final values: 👁️👄👁️

  • @SlimJimJoey
    @SlimJimJoey 3 роки тому +39

    This guy has the brain of The Brain, but the voice of Pinky 😂😂😂 Narf!

    • @hatebreeder999
      @hatebreeder999 3 роки тому +1

      Ahh the pinky and the brain.
      Very famous cartoon here in India during early 2000s😇

    • @shanestevens5194
      @shanestevens5194 3 роки тому +2

      Similar physical attributes as pinky also hahaaaa

  • @bytemegga
    @bytemegga 6 років тому +414

    *sees f(x)* *PTSD fires up*

    • @katyameowmeow
      @katyameowmeow 5 років тому +18

      Blan Morrison reminds them of awful high school math classes

    • @amr-bw4gf
      @amr-bw4gf 5 років тому +10

      Unit circle fires up my ptsd

    • @nathanashman7302
      @nathanashman7302 5 років тому +2

      💀

    • @alimcpeake2675
      @alimcpeake2675 5 років тому

      2pir made me habe flashbacks

    • @jorgepeterbarton
      @jorgepeterbarton 5 років тому

      yes i was there, a suicide bomber detonated during the exams @@katyameowmeow

  • @dmsanct
    @dmsanct 4 роки тому +7

    I yearn for the day I can say "Yo guys have you heard, infinitesimals made a comeback!" and have people look at me like I finally lost it

  • @benjamingarrido5494
    @benjamingarrido5494 2 роки тому +3

    Por favor podrías subir tus videos con subtitulo en español, se ve que tus clases son bien animadas y muy explicadas, gracias

  • @NathanOkun
    @NathanOkun 2 роки тому +1

    Cantor's Diagonal Proof showed that there were always "wedged-in" values between any two Rational Number fractions, however small, to form the Real Numbers. Thus, the basics for this topic were there ever since he came up with that proof.