I like to think you (Destin) were on your main channel when you saw this but decided to swap over to your second channel to comment, just for the "second channel-ception".
That was funny, but I think in just a teasing manner, like "two can play at this corrections game." I think they both know Veritasium was right on that; because, when one only shows one significant digit, rounding it is the best, accepted way. It's the power of ten that is important. I prefer scientific notation, "7.8 E-31".
Ah yes, the Parker Correction, which looks and sounds like a rounding error is about to be pointed out, but which then points out that the rounding is actually correct but it needs to be known that this number has been rounded :D
I also thought of "Parker Correction" but do we want to save that for when you attempt to correct someone else's mistake, and your correction is *almost* correct, but not quite?
@@Anytus2007 That's already called "incorrecting" someone in my lexicon so I didn't think about that :P But since Matt was fully aware of the almost-perfect nature of the square when making it, I'd say almost correcting someone but not quite correcting them on purpose is closer to the intent
@@EntropicTroponin It's arrogant? What? He was pursuing the truth, nothing more, nothing less. You'd be a fool to think there was any bad blood or ill intent in that correction.
Derek played the reverse card on Matt and Matt played one right back with his "Your calculation is 1% off." But Derek had nothing but a wild card left so he won anyway.
That's just the nature of maths. There is no back and forth, if you're proven wrong it is definitive. There are no shades of grey or 'different perspectives' or 'a context' to consider. Just the plain cold truth.
I congratulate Matt on his sincerity. Errors occur all the time, in science and math, and we just have to recognize them later and correct the mistake.
me and my 99 homies was about to bust out of the joint with the random method. thank you for correcting that 8 to a 7. dereck was selling us false hope !
Ah that last digit burn 🔥. Glad all of you form such a good company and interact with each other, that such topics are always fun to watch and laugh about in a positive way ❤️
I totally agree with you here.. that positive note is what we all should follow in my opinion. When I watched Derek mentioning Matt, I felt that as positive feedback and free advertisement immediately. I love watching both streams, Derek for his ways of bringing various messages, and Matt for his awesome way of explaining math as an expert. I'll continue watching both ;)
I love watching these channels. Not only for the education. The interest the intrigue the problem solving the ingenious creators but the drama the drama is the best. I love you guys. You always do a great job
I do hope that Derek learns from this and is more cautious in the future. I'm lucky my daughter wasn't with me when that 8 came on screen but other parents may not be so lucky.
Beautiful. I was expecting and hoping for a response video. Matt, your humor, wit and congenial attitude always put a smile on my face. Thanks for being you.
Both Derek and Matt ( and of course Grant Sanderson + the guys at numberphile etc ) are beacons of mathematical teaching . When watching the video where Derek takes a $10,000 bet ( re: moving faster than the speed of the wind ) , he makes the statement that if he is wrong in his calculations he would want to know why .This is a very good attitude to have . Historically there has always been great rivalry in the field of mathematics . So well done Matt ( and Derek ) for upholding this tradition . Thankyou both for making such brilliant videos .
Man, you've fought for that 7. You've scrutinized every pixel of Derek's video, and all you got was that lousy 7. Still, formally speaking, that does even things out. Well done.
@@stephenkamenar Well, not exactly. The mistake of saying pi = 3.142 is orders of magnitude bigger than Derek's mistake. Will I state exactly how many orders of magnitude? No, because then I might be making an even bigger mistake. 😛
He could've found much more, but maybe he was trying to be nice. Derek, as he increasingly tends to do these days, muddled up a lot of details in his explanation. He gave the right answers, but for poorly communicated reasons. For example, the two copies of 100! that cancel each other out (one in the numerator and the other in the denominator) have very different meanings, which is a subtlety he should have better clarified. And worse, he did the calculation for a loop containing all of the objects, and then nonchalantly stated that the same works for any subset of the objects. Let alone mentioning that it works only for more than half of the total, it is poor communication even to take his edge case calculation and apply it to the interior cases without inspection.
Didn't bother clicking Veritasium's video and din't even know you had a second channel, but I clicked THIS video. "OOOH!" I said to myself, "INTERNET MATHS CALL-OUT DRAMA!" Little did I realise I would not be able to concentrate on a word that was said due to being faced with one of the coolest-looking shirts I have seen in a while. I bet there's even some maths behind it!
One Australian respectfully snipped another Australian so the snipped Australian fired back with an equally respectful snip. What is important to remember is that they are both enjoying a lovely summer while there homeland is in the depths of winter (although Australian winters aren't really that bad). It's almost like they are both fine with each others videos and that the reference was nothing more than a back handed complement of the others channel.
I understood the problem from your video, but Derek definitely answered a satisfying question. The ultimate question of the problem is “how many scramblings result in their being no loops longer than 50”? Your video was sort of hand-wavy and just said we brute forced the answer with computers, whereas Derek explained how you could figure it out on just a whiteboard. Not that I don’t love both your videos, but I appreciated that aspect of his video
3:02 So *Matt* is wearing the identical shirt in his earlier video as in this one. So I surmise that that is his “100 prisoners problem” shirt. (He’s not like Tom Scott, is he?)
The trouble with Derekassium is that he is a little bit of a troll. He is often right, but he frames the truth with limited boundary conditions to give people room to argue. His Light lighting up at the end of a very long loop of wire being a case in point, the original video was correct, but framed in a way that invited disagreement.
He loves clickbait, he even admits it. So he says something controversial, which will spark discussion, which gives him more views and an excuse to make a follow-up video. All for that sweet cash. Honestly, I find him more and more annoying.
Honestly, it's one of the reasons I like his channel. The deep dives other creators make while trying to correct, or confirm, his videos end up providing excellent explanations of otherwise difficult topics and different approaches to problem solving. Plus, it shows in pseudo real-time the way science actually works.
@@Pulsar77 its annoying if you go into his videos expecting a scientist or a mathematician or a logician. veritasium is a performance intended to reach more people, because being purely scientific is more interesting to fewer people. inviting discussion allows those smaller and more niche youtubers to reach more people through his pop-science channel
I don't think he was correct at all and the only way he was able to claim to have been right is to have framed the question as vauge as he could, and then retconned in the actual answer after he was called out for an incorrect video that wasn't even convincing. Knowing that there's a big difference between the amount of power the light gets instantly and after a second, the only way to salvage it is to make assumptions not presented in the original video. Assuming that the light bulb isn't dimmable, which is what most people think of when there's a light bulb in a problem, then he would have been totally wrong. Veritasium has always been obnoxious and I've never felt like I've enjoyed learning anything from that channel.
Matt, in general I love Derek's videos, but you are the master. Wonderful 'thought I point that out' and 'it all cancels out', 'move on with or lives'. Koala stamp! Well done! Love this!
Not to mention the flurry of videos around Dirk (of Veriistablium* fame) and his video explaining the Poynting Vector. *Acknowledgments to CGP and Brady and their H.I. podcasts
Isn't getting dereked when you are in the process of creating a video but someone (often times Derek) gets a video on the same topic out earlier, so you make your original video and in that point out a little mistake?
Even though I never seen your channel and only found this one from Veritasium, I love the friendly rivalry that's going on and can't help but respect it.
Nice one, Matt; just the right tone, if I may say so! I also heard Derek as saying the probability of a random perm having a maximal cycle order of r was 1/r, and was struck by the fact that that clearly wasn't what his bar chart showed for r
That’s one of the reasons I went for STEM. It’s collaborative and I, myself, or other colleagues will help fix or catch mistakes in the overall goal of finding a solution. Great video as always Matt.
I watched the first 6 minutes of the video then went to bed and came back to it after getting back up, Glad I watched the very end bit. Most important bit of all I do approve good Professor. I do agree this should be about lets say keeping score so once again good job.
I love how he says "Now that all balances out" while we're all looking at the view count on this video and "balancing" it with a Veritasium main channel video...
That is so funny that you science communicators have a term for whenever Derek beats you out to posting a video or now reverse-dereked. Reverse-Dereked has lead me to finding some really great channels. I don't know why UA-cam hasn't thrown your videos in my feed sooner. I found Nick Lucid's Science Asylum because of the whole misconceptions of electricity saga. This also lead me to Medhi's Electroboom and then Steven Mould I found Dr Becky channel through a similar thing with the release of the images of the Black Hole at the center of our galaxy. Its almost as if UA-cam's algorithm should have a Derek filter.
@@triffid0hunter Practical Engineer is really good, from a civil engineer perspective. I legit learn things watching his channel, and his more recent (and relatively new to his channel) current events videos have been fascinating.
Very good response to a video-response to your previous video. It's nice you managed to fit in some humour at the end! I saw Veritasium's video the other day too. I think reaction videos to other people's videos seem to come up more (on the suggested video list) as if they are more click-baity than usual! Maybe because we all like errors to be spotted... but are not so keen on having our own errors pointed out! Hopefully no one will expose someone else's errors in public in an embarrassing or humiliating way. It seems so many science/maths communicators on UA-cam all know each other so are all friends and sometimes friendly rivals!
I don't know why, but the bit about first digit after those 30 zeros being a 7 and not an 8, even though it does round to 8, gave me a genuine laugh. Has been ages since I had one it feels. I'm still laughing even ad I write this and I'm not sure why xD
For me it's that this number is unperceivably small. The smallest correction I've ever heard of. 1.114E−32 to be precise. It get's very close to the smallest physically reasonable unit of length we have which is the Planck length which is 1.6E-35 meters. (apparently attempting to measure any shorter distance would create a black hole)
Acknowledging and exploring your own mistakes is the ultimate expression of real scientific virtue, you have shown the depths of your wisdom and converted me to a lifelong fan. Cheers!
Good onya Matt, I’m proud to be represented by two great Aussies like you and Derrick lol. Been watching you both for a few years now and am so grateful that you’ve both become the men of science that you have and for the great teaches you both are. Thanks mate, a very enjoyable rebuttal ,’)
Yeah I also spotted that mistake because I was following along doing all the calculations
2 роки тому+7
Your approach to science and being humble about it to be highlighted, totally fantastic! New subscriber here at least because we need more people in science open to correction, like you!
Hi Matt, here's a quick idea for you. Emma Raducanu has been incorrectly stated as being 5' 7" when she is 1.75m tall ie 5.7 feet (5'9"). This is on the WTA website and was shown on the BBC Wimbledon coverage. Is it time to go metric completely?
What happens to players who are 5' 11". Are they converted to 5.11 ft (5' 1" - rounded) :-) PS Going metric completely. Metric time and the French Revolution is worth reading about.
It's not just the WTA, Barney Ronay wrote an article for the Guardian on 29th June 2022 where he states Emma has a disadvantage at 5'7". Perpetuating the error.
Regarding going metric, imperial unit countries could adopt the SI prefixes without completely giving up on the imperial units. Just pick one unit for each dimension (length, mass, volume, etc.) and start using the SI prefixes with it. For example you can have nanofeet, microfeet, millifeet, centifeet, decifeet, feet, decafeet, hectofeet, kilofeet, megafeet, etc. This would have the advantage that citizens don't have to suddenly get used to units they rarely (if ever) used in their lives, but gets rid of the non-decimal unit conversions which is probably the source of most errors when using imperial units. This also makes it easier to transition to the metric units because then only one conversion factor is needed per dimension.
I just like to imagine Dirk searching through your videos for comments where you’ve been corrected by someone on a point in material way, which then gets turned into the next Veritasium video.
@@diggoran If you sign yourself up to the OpenAI beta, you can use their Playground to have the GPT3 algorithm list a stack of Dirk from Veristablium variations. Just give it a few you knew in a list, but also include “Dr”, “Derek”, “Muller” and “Dirk” in the restricted words list so that it doesn’t start giving you a bunch of repeats that don’t match the pattern.
There's something cool about being reverse-dereked, like your face pops on his channel "this guy was so ahead and interesting that I had to make a video about his thing. There's a little catch to it when I pondered about it". Also probably great continuation to the saga of reaching higher UA-cam numbers. Also you got to point out a mistake in it, now you're set to launch a chain of videos like Mehdi vs Derek or Mehdi vs Steve Mould or Mehdi vs the world.
thanks for the laugh and always making it fun. Matt is a great champion for giving it a go--can't win if you don't play/ get anywhere if you don't try--and being diligent too/ learn from the mistakes.
Actually I thought that the only interesting thing in his video was the statement that the warden can't beat this strategy merely by ensuring that his chosen permutation has a long cycle. Because, he says, the prisoners can simply modify the strategy by doctoring the permutation -- I think he says "add 5" or something. That's genuinely interesting and would merit amplification.
Sure but what if my permutation is shifting all cards by one? (in box 1 there's card number 2, etc). This is a loop of length 100, and just by adding 5 (or any other offset except 99) the loop still exists. "This is my friend Derek, and what I think he meant to say is, all the prisoners need to remember a whole new permutation, and compose it with the given permutation" If they use some generic rule instead of another permutation, the malicious guard can construct the permutation to have big loops after the rule. If the guard doesn't know the offset they're planning to add then the 100-loop won't work, but probably there's a permutation which foils every addition.
@@AssemblyWizard But it may not be a single loop. Think of a loop 1->2->3->4->1 of length 4. I am not sure what Derek meant by "shift by 5" but let's imagine a "shift by 1" here. Prisoner 1 goes to box one, opens it, sees 2, and shifts by 1: result 3. They then go to box 3, open it, sees 4, shifts by 1 (cyclically): result 1. So we get 1->3->1. But crucially this strategy never opens the liberating box 4. So I am confused by what he might have meant by this. You can easily doctor a permutation (in this case in effect squaring it) to make a permutation with shorter cycles (in this case 2 of length 2 rather than 1 of length 4) but you need a way to do this and lead each prisoner to the box with their number in it. You could instead "shift by 1" by first opening box 2, seeing 3; then opening box 4 and see 1. As long as the number of prisoners isn't prime this would always reduce the length. But there are other modifications possible. So there is lots of latitude for investigating this as a game.
@@thelivetoad The "add 1" is adding 1 to each box. The visual given was the first prisoner physically relabeling each box, then using the original strategy. So, the prisoner would first check box "1" (formerly known as box 100), then if that box contained a 6, he'd move on to box "6" (previously known as box 5), etc. This effectively randomizes the contents of each box, undoing the warden's sabotage.
@@bennettpalmer1741 Well, any permutation of the labels will only result in the same cycle structure as before, so it cannot undo the warden's counterstrategy. Again, the main issue is "is there a cycle of length greater than 1/2 the number of prisoners". If yes then any relabeling maintains that reality. Some prisoner will be in that cycle. One of the ways of implementing the "shift by x" strategy (the second one I described above) would in effect traverse a positive power of the permutation. If prisoner y's number is in a cycle of length L then a power of that by a divisor D of L will reduce it to D cycles of lengths L/D. Of course you don't know the length of the cycle that contains your number and at any rate you have to make sure to implement such a strategy so that your number is in the cycle you end up traversing. (See my first example above.) The beauty of the original strategy was that by starting at the box labeled with your number you'd traverse a cycle guaranteed to contain the box with your number in it. Remember, the warden will not release you if you al find a box with a relabeled version of your numbers -- you have to find the box with your number in it as put there by the warden.
@@thelivetoad Let's just create a hypothetical scenario. Box 1->3 Box 2 ->4 Box 3->1 Box 4->5 Box 5->2. We have two cycles, 1-3-1, and 2-4-5-2. If we add 1 to all the box totals, we get Box (5+1=)1->2 Box (1+1=)2->3 Box (2+1=)3->4 Box (3+1=)4->1 Box (4+1=)5->5. We have 1-2-3-4-1 and 5-5. The cycle structure has changed.
I remember watching full footage of matt playing dice and calculating some coprime numbers. And I spotted a mistake in it. I wrote a comment with that mistake, tagged it and checked if anyone else has found it earlier. And Matt hasn't tagged me in a correction:( Edit. With Matt I can watch tee getting cold and I find it interesting.
Has oil been reverse-derricking Derek this whole time? It has certainly been being derricked for way longer Derek has been Dereking. There's no disputing that.
:D you have won :) Just kidding - I would love to see more videos about showing how important is to fix or let others to fix mistakes and how important is to go with that and don't get stuck on wrong solution because of ego. Thank you for fun :)
It would be awesome to get corrected by Derek or any of the edu communicators.. but still, I’ll try to be as correct as possible. Matt puts out a lot of content. Getting corrected is inevitable for anyone over the long run.
On brand. I love it. I also love that he's wearing the same shirt as when he got Dereked. Edit: wait, there's no... Video. UA-cam is confused. It just keeps trying to buffer, but can't play video. edit 3, OK nevermind. It was UA-cam being dumb.
I get a lot of buffering and codec rendering issues on the Android app, pausing and minimizing tends to do the trick, at least if the video is all artifacted right after an ad (it's always an ad that breaks the codec into smeary rainbow pixels). I have issues maintaining wifi connection from upstairs sometimes, but UA-cam is losing connection and coming back online waaay more often than I have issues with in other apps. It's just not very stable. Google seems to keep "fixing" things that weren't broken.
Classy video.
2nd channel-ception
I like to think you (Destin) were on your main channel when you saw this but decided to swap over to your second channel to comment, just for the "second channel-ception".
2nd channel got their back.
@@reububble nope sorry, was logged in on SED2
@@SmarterEveryDay2 Hi Destin nice to meet you on a comment section 😄
Takeaway: Derek is too famous, Matt is too pedantic, and Steve Mould is the nicest man on the planet.
This made me smile
Matt should write a book on maths errors.
…
Oh wait.
Did you mean to say Matt errors?
@@cossaertom That would seem like a Parker square of an error
@@cossaertom that would just be a book of spelling errors 😂
people know what they do.
@@cossaertom That would be more of an encyclopedia then
It's always nice when Matt helps out the little channels with some extra sound bites for their videos.
Now THAT is a delightfully spiteful counter correction! I strongly approve.
No checkmark? 🙃
Notch?
@@Twosies20 because it’s not Notch
@@rws531 It is. That's his youtube channel. He's posted some of his other programming experiments there.
Could be used as the definition of nit-picking.
You aren't exaggerating. You're underestimating. I showed that video to _both_ of my dogs.
Absolutely destroyed him with the 8 -> 7 correction, Matt’s still got it! Nice video
That got me laughing so hard XD
We'll call it a draw!
That was funny, but I think in just a teasing manner, like "two can play at this corrections game." I think they both know Veritasium was right on that; because, when one only shows one significant digit, rounding it is the best, accepted way. It's the power of ten that is important. I prefer scientific notation, "7.8 E-31".
Yeah, it’s “funny” because he know that it’s a really weak “correction”
I think my friend @@concinnity9676 meant 7.9 * 10⁻³¹
I mean if you're going to show 2 significant numbers rounding is the best accepted way 😉
Ah yes, the Parker Correction, which looks and sounds like a rounding error is about to be pointed out, but which then points out that the rounding is actually correct but it needs to be known that this number has been rounded :D
Parker Correction gets my vote!
I *immediately* though of a montage similar to that of the Parker Square.
We need Brady on this.
derek now got parkered xD
I also thought of "Parker Correction" but do we want to save that for when you attempt to correct someone else's mistake, and your correction is *almost* correct, but not quite?
@@Anytus2007 That's already called "incorrecting" someone in my lexicon so I didn't think about that :P
But since Matt was fully aware of the almost-perfect nature of the square when making it, I'd say almost correcting someone but not quite correcting them on purpose is closer to the intent
Glad that you accepted the reverse-Derek so gracefully without having the need to find a flaw.
I found Derek's call-out of the mistake quite arrogant. Matt's jab at the digit is humourous in comparison
@Squant Like you just now?
@@EntropicTroponin It's arrogant? What? He was pursuing the truth, nothing more, nothing less.
You'd be a fool to think there was any bad blood or ill intent in that correction.
🤣🤣😆😆
@@jeremiahsmith8499 the ol fake beef between YT content creators.
Never gets old
Proud to be one of those [all people in the world] who whatsapped you Derek’s video hehehe
can you send me his number
not like i'll spam him or anything, really
@@mojacodes ua-cam.com/video/E6Kh3ayh1LA/v-deo.html
I’ve always appreciated the corrections section in the descriptions of your videos. It’s a good philosophy towards mistakes
The news used to have to do this as well.
They do... 3 days later on page 47, after everyone has moved on and in a place no one sees.
Where is it here?
Congrats on spotting the erroneous 8 Matt. How does it feel to be the Dereker instead of the Derekee?
Amazing
In the off-chance this isn't obvious - ignore that spam message...
@@NeatNit No, don't ignore it, report it! With prejudice !!
@@Soken50 Oh, I do, but that doesn't actually do anything! Comment scams don't lose Google any money so they don't bother to do anything about them.
@@Soken50 ueah
Derek being loose on the language and digits, does that mean he should get reverse-reverse-Dereked?
Derek played the reverse card on Matt and Matt played one right back with his "Your calculation is 1% off." But Derek had nothing but a wild card left so he won anyway.
didn't matt get matted anyway , dereking was a different thing
Does reverse-reverse-Dereked cancels out to just Dereked?
would that not be reverse-Dereked-reversed (Why do I feel like Sheldon cooper is about to appear and correct us all :D).
@@madmaveric It's Dereks all the way down.
That was great. I've never laughed harder at a 7 after 30 zeros.
Drama in the maths community is so wholesome compared to the rest of youtube, lol
This feels like it has the potential to become the maths analogue of Uncle Roger and Jamie Oliver
That's just the nature of maths. There is no back and forth, if you're proven wrong it is definitive. There are no shades of grey or 'different perspectives' or 'a context' to consider. Just the plain cold truth.
idk people got pretty fired up about the -1/12 thing
@@dekippiesip So long as you can agree on axioms and definitions, which isn't as common as people might think.
flammablemath tho
I congratulate Matt on his sincerity. Errors occur all the time, in science and math, and we just have to recognize them later and correct the mistake.
4:47 Ah yes. The Parker Square we so fondly remember Matt of.
This reaffirms my sneaky suspicion that mathematicians are all petty dorks. I thank you for your service.
me and my 99 homies was about to bust out of the joint with the random method. thank you for correcting that 8 to a 7. dereck was selling us false hope !
Using the end of a 2nd channel video for a correction on someone else's main channel video is an amazing move.
Love that you're having fun with editing, Matt
The ending with the "correction" for Derek's video was great fun! I lol'd!
"Eventually, everyone in the world will be Reverse-Dereked"
-Andy Warhol, probably.
fantastic comment
Ah that last digit burn 🔥. Glad all of you form such a good company and interact with each other, that such topics are always fun to watch and laugh about in a positive way ❤️
I totally agree with you here.. that positive note is what we all should follow in my opinion. When I watched Derek mentioning Matt, I felt that as positive feedback and free advertisement immediately. I love watching both streams, Derek for his ways of bringing various messages, and Matt for his awesome way of explaining math as an expert. I'll continue watching both ;)
I love watching these channels. Not only for the education. The interest the intrigue the problem solving the ingenious creators but the drama the drama is the best. I love you guys. You always do a great job
I do hope that Derek learns from this and is more cautious in the future. I'm lucky my daughter wasn't with me when that 8 came on screen but other parents may not be so lucky.
Beautiful. I was expecting and hoping for a response video. Matt, your humor, wit and congenial attitude always put a smile on my face. Thanks for being you.
Both Derek and Matt ( and of course Grant Sanderson + the guys at numberphile etc ) are beacons of mathematical teaching . When watching the video where Derek takes a $10,000 bet ( re: moving faster than the speed of the wind ) , he makes the statement that if he is wrong in his calculations he would want to know why .This is a very good attitude to have . Historically there has always been great rivalry in the field of mathematics . So well done Matt ( and Derek ) for upholding this tradition . Thankyou both for making such brilliant videos .
Man, you've fought for that 7. You've scrutinized every pixel of Derek's video, and all you got was that lousy 7. Still, formally speaking, that does even things out. Well done.
that's as big of a mistake as saying pi = 3.142
@@stephenkamenar Yes, and we will not be silenced!
@@stephenkamenar Well, not exactly. The mistake of saying pi = 3.142 is orders of magnitude bigger than Derek's mistake. Will I state exactly how many orders of magnitude? No, because then I might be making an even bigger mistake. 😛
He could've found much more, but maybe he was trying to be nice. Derek, as he increasingly tends to do these days, muddled up a lot of details in his explanation. He gave the right answers, but for poorly communicated reasons. For example, the two copies of 100! that cancel each other out (one in the numerator and the other in the denominator) have very different meanings, which is a subtlety he should have better clarified. And worse, he did the calculation for a loop containing all of the objects, and then nonchalantly stated that the same works for any subset of the objects. Let alone mentioning that it works only for more than half of the total, it is poor communication even to take his edge case calculation and apply it to the interior cases without inspection.
Off by one errors can be super disastrous.
Didn't bother clicking Veritasium's video and din't even know you had a second channel, but I clicked THIS video. "OOOH!" I said to myself, "INTERNET MATHS CALL-OUT DRAMA!"
Little did I realise I would not be able to concentrate on a word that was said due to being faced with one of the coolest-looking shirts I have seen in a while. I bet there's even some maths behind it!
Yeah, I always wish I knew where Matt gets his shirts.
I think we all know that ACTUALLY, Matt here has been being Parker-Dereked
That was way saltier that I ever expected! Waiting for more from this second channel
One Australian respectfully snipped another Australian so the snipped Australian fired back with an equally respectful snip. What is important to remember is that they are both enjoying a lovely summer while there homeland is in the depths of winter (although Australian winters aren't really that bad). It's almost like they are both fine with each others videos and that the reference was nothing more than a back handed complement of the others channel.
Technically one is Canadian, but yes
Meh all commonwealth anyway
@@ThisMoose But lived in Australia long enough to qualify.
Our winters aren't that bad... *cries in every place I visit on the east coast of Australia getting several hundred millimetres of rain and flooding*
Pretty sure Matt is British
Hahahah, was expecting this video to come and you did not disappoint XD
I understood the problem from your video, but Derek definitely answered a satisfying question. The ultimate question of the problem is “how many scramblings result in their being no loops longer than 50”? Your video was sort of hand-wavy and just said we brute forced the answer with computers, whereas Derek explained how you could figure it out on just a whiteboard. Not that I don’t love both your videos, but I appreciated that aspect of his video
3:02 So *Matt* is wearing the identical shirt in his earlier video as in this one. So I surmise that that is his “100 prisoners problem” shirt. (He’s not like Tom Scott, is he?)
Nice spot!
@@lolzold4 Thanks!
The trouble with Derekassium is that he is a little bit of a troll. He is often right, but he frames the truth with limited boundary conditions to give people room to argue. His Light lighting up at the end of a very long loop of wire being a case in point, the original video was correct, but framed in a way that invited disagreement.
He loves clickbait, he even admits it. So he says something controversial, which will spark discussion, which gives him more views and an excuse to make a follow-up video. All for that sweet cash. Honestly, I find him more and more annoying.
Honestly, it's one of the reasons I like his channel. The deep dives other creators make while trying to correct, or confirm, his videos end up providing excellent explanations of otherwise difficult topics and different approaches to problem solving. Plus, it shows in pseudo real-time the way science actually works.
@@Pulsar77 That's why I unsubbed from him a while ago.
@@Pulsar77 its annoying if you go into his videos expecting a scientist or a mathematician or a logician. veritasium is a performance intended to reach more people, because being purely scientific is more interesting to fewer people. inviting discussion allows those smaller and more niche youtubers to reach more people through his pop-science channel
I don't think he was correct at all and the only way he was able to claim to have been right is to have framed the question as vauge as he could, and then retconned in the actual answer after he was called out for an incorrect video that wasn't even convincing. Knowing that there's a big difference between the amount of power the light gets instantly and after a second, the only way to salvage it is to make assumptions not presented in the original video. Assuming that the light bulb isn't dimmable, which is what most people think of when there's a light bulb in a problem, then he would have been totally wrong.
Veritasium has always been obnoxious and I've never felt like I've enjoyed learning anything from that channel.
“Aaaand steve is gone” RIP steve you will be missed
Matt, in general I love Derek's videos, but you are the master. Wonderful 'thought I point that out' and 'it all cancels out', 'move on with or lives'. Koala stamp! Well done! Love this!
How cool is this, watching my fav YT creators interacting with each other is such a awesome way! Love it!
Derek gets "dereked" a lot. His video on sailing faster that the wind and his one on the propagation of electricity in a wire got a lot of responses
Not to mention the flurry of videos around Dirk (of Veriistablium* fame) and his video explaining the Poynting Vector.
*Acknowledgments to CGP and Brady and their H.I. podcasts
except there was nothing wrong with the sailing video, people just couldn't accept it...
Isn't getting dereked when you are in the process of creating a video but someone (often times Derek) gets a video on the same topic out earlier, so you make your original video and in that point out a little mistake?
Yet he was correct in every one of them, even doing thorough experiments to show those that didn't accept them that he was indeed right.
@@GamezGuru1 Nothing wrong with the electricity one either but EEs are still raging mad about it lol
Even though I never seen your channel and only found this one from Veritasium, I love the friendly rivalry that's going on and can't help but respect it.
You know you've made it as an educational UA-camr when you find yourself in a feud with Derek.
The only man who can even thimgs out, by pointing out that the correct number is odd and not even
Nice one, Matt; just the right tone, if I may say so!
I also heard Derek as saying the probability of a random perm having a maximal cycle order of r was 1/r, and was struck by the fact that that clearly wasn't what his bar chart showed for r
I thought I was reverse-Dereked once, but it turns out I was just constipated.
That’s one of the reasons I went for STEM. It’s collaborative and I, myself, or other colleagues will help fix or catch mistakes in the overall goal of finding a solution.
Great video as always Matt.
Make sure you're the last the spot a mistake to flex your intelect.
Thanks for putting a smile on my face during the most thursday-like monday i have ever had
I watched the first 6 minutes of the video then went to bed and came back to it after getting back up, Glad I watched the very end bit. Most important bit of all I do approve good Professor. I do agree this should be about lets say keeping score so once again good job.
I love how he says "Now that all balances out" while we're all looking at the view count on this video and "balancing" it with a Veritasium main channel video...
That is so funny that you science communicators have a term for whenever Derek beats you out to posting a video or now reverse-dereked.
Reverse-Dereked has lead me to finding some really great channels. I don't know why UA-cam hasn't thrown your videos in my feed sooner.
I found Nick Lucid's Science Asylum because of the whole misconceptions of electricity saga. This also lead me to Medhi's Electroboom and then Steven Mould
I found Dr Becky channel through a similar thing with the release of the images of the Black Hole at the center of our galaxy.
Its almost as if UA-cam's algorithm should have a Derek filter.
Have you found AlphaPhoenix as well? It's a great channel, I highly recommend it!
Also check Tech Ingredients and Applied Science for more practical science/engineering content ;)
@@triffid0hunter
Practical Engineer is really good, from a civil engineer perspective. I legit learn things watching his channel, and his more recent (and relatively new to his channel) current events videos have been fascinating.
Very good response to a video-response to your previous video.
It's nice you managed to fit in some humour at the end! I saw Veritasium's video the other day too.
I think reaction videos to other people's videos seem to come up more (on the suggested video list) as if they are more click-baity than usual! Maybe because we all like errors to be spotted... but are not so keen on having our own errors pointed out!
Hopefully no one will expose someone else's errors in public in an embarrassing or humiliating way. It seems so many science/maths communicators on UA-cam all know each other so are all friends and sometimes friendly rivals!
Derek got Parker-Squared
The flying eagle screaming Parker's square made me laugh out loud!
I don't know why, but the bit about first digit after those 30 zeros being a 7 and not an 8, even though it does round to 8, gave me a genuine laugh. Has been ages since I had one it feels. I'm still laughing even ad I write this and I'm not sure why xD
For me it's that this number is unperceivably small. The smallest correction I've ever heard of. 1.114E−32 to be precise.
It get's very close to the smallest physically reasonable unit of length we have which is the Planck length which is 1.6E-35 meters.
(apparently attempting to measure any shorter distance would create a black hole)
Acknowledging and exploring your own mistakes is the ultimate expression of real scientific virtue, you have shown the depths of your wisdom and converted me to a lifelong fan. Cheers!
DEREK OWNED BY MATHS AND LOGIC
The guy is smart, funny, AND humble. You're awesome Matt
Good onya Matt, I’m proud to be represented by two great Aussies like you and Derrick lol. Been watching you both for a few years now and am so grateful that you’ve both become the men of science that you have and for the great teaches you both are. Thanks mate, a very enjoyable rebuttal ,’)
is he not canadian?
...Derek that is..
@@onwardandupward2345 Born in Australia, raised in Canada. His parents have pretty thick Aussie accents.
That correction is absolutely the best counter of the year
Yeah I also spotted that mistake because I was following along doing all the calculations
Your approach to science and being humble about it to be highlighted, totally fantastic! New subscriber here at least because we need more people in science open to correction, like you!
If your friend Matthew checked your check, hasn't Derek been double-Matted?
That cheeky parker square at 4:42 was HILARIOUS!
I'm dying. Omg
Hi Matt, here's a quick idea for you. Emma Raducanu has been incorrectly stated as being 5' 7" when she is 1.75m tall ie 5.7 feet (5'9"). This is on the WTA website and was shown on the BBC Wimbledon coverage. Is it time to go metric completely?
This is brilliant I hope Matt sees it.
Regarding going metric: YES! It has been time to do that for decades!
What happens to players who are 5' 11". Are they converted to 5.11 ft (5' 1" - rounded) :-)
PS Going metric completely. Metric time and the French Revolution is worth reading about.
It's not just the WTA, Barney Ronay wrote an article for the Guardian on 29th June 2022 where he states Emma has a disadvantage at 5'7". Perpetuating the error.
Regarding going metric, imperial unit countries could adopt the SI prefixes without completely giving up on the imperial units. Just pick one unit for each dimension (length, mass, volume, etc.) and start using the SI prefixes with it. For example you can have nanofeet, microfeet, millifeet, centifeet, decifeet, feet, decafeet, hectofeet, kilofeet, megafeet, etc. This would have the advantage that citizens don't have to suddenly get used to units they rarely (if ever) used in their lives, but gets rid of the non-decimal unit conversions which is probably the source of most errors when using imperial units. This also makes it easier to transition to the metric units because then only one conversion factor is needed per dimension.
I'm just amazed by the attention to details on Matt's videos
If he just had the same attention to accuracy :)
Refresh the page guys, the audio is there.
That Parker Square is going to be with you forever lol
I just like to imagine Dirk searching through your videos for comments where you’ve been corrected by someone on a point in material way, which then gets turned into the next Veritasium video.
HI 👋
That does seem like something that Dirk from Veristablium would do…
@@diggoran If you sign yourself up to the OpenAI beta, you can use their Playground to have the GPT3 algorithm list a stack of Dirk from Veristablium variations. Just give it a few you knew in a list, but also include “Dr”, “Derek”, “Muller” and “Dirk” in the restricted words list so that it doesn’t start giving you a bunch of repeats that don’t match the pattern.
My first thought on seeing the title of his video the other day was "I wonder if that's the prisoner problem from Stand Up Maths."
There's something cool about being reverse-dereked, like your face pops on his channel "this guy was so ahead and interesting that I had to make a video about his thing. There's a little catch to it when I pondered about it". Also probably great continuation to the saga of reaching higher UA-cam numbers. Also you got to point out a mistake in it, now you're set to launch a chain of videos like Mehdi vs Derek or Mehdi vs Steve Mould or Mehdi vs the world.
Well done! Now that's how one takes an embarrassing situation, owns up to it, and comes back with something funny to say. Wholesome!
Good thing you kept the shirt, for continuity and all. Love the M.C. Escher artwork on your wall.
LOL, that thing about the digit 8 was just absolutely hilarious! You just had to squeeze in a correction, no matter how minor.
I always like seeing new videos from Dirk of Veratablium.
It's "VeriSTABlium" 😉😇
Anyhow, hi "fellow Tim"!
Take your upvote, Tim... ;-)
I miss the Timfoolery
@@jmacd8817 Hi back, to you! And I'm a bassist, too.
The commitment to wearing the same shirt, as you did in your "Dereked" segment. Perfect.
I like that you (I'm certain it's deliberate) are wearing the same shirt in both videos!
A reverse Derek sounds like an Olympic dive manoeuvre. A reverse Derek with a half pike and twist.
What made me click the like button was the eagle scream logo wipe. Incase you're looking for feedback
thanks for the laugh and always making it fun. Matt is a great champion for giving it a go--can't win if you don't play/ get anywhere if you don't try--and being diligent too/ learn from the mistakes.
Derek got dereked.
Reverse-Dereked!
Mistakes or not, I always enjoy your enthusiasm for maths! Keep it up!
Actually I thought that the only interesting thing in his video was the statement that the warden can't beat this strategy merely by ensuring that his chosen permutation has a long cycle. Because, he says, the prisoners can simply modify the strategy by doctoring the permutation -- I think he says "add 5" or something. That's genuinely interesting and would merit amplification.
Sure but what if my permutation is shifting all cards by one? (in box 1 there's card number 2, etc). This is a loop of length 100, and just by adding 5 (or any other offset except 99) the loop still exists.
"This is my friend Derek, and what I think he meant to say is, all the prisoners need to remember a whole new permutation, and compose it with the given permutation"
If they use some generic rule instead of another permutation, the malicious guard can construct the permutation to have big loops after the rule.
If the guard doesn't know the offset they're planning to add then the 100-loop won't work, but probably there's a permutation which foils every addition.
@@AssemblyWizard But it may not be a single loop. Think of a loop 1->2->3->4->1 of length 4. I am not sure what Derek meant by "shift by 5" but let's imagine a "shift by 1" here. Prisoner 1 goes to box one, opens it, sees 2, and shifts by 1: result 3. They then go to box 3, open it, sees 4, shifts by 1 (cyclically): result 1. So we get 1->3->1. But crucially this strategy never opens the liberating box 4. So I am confused by what he might have meant by this. You can easily doctor a permutation (in this case in effect squaring it) to make a permutation with shorter cycles (in this case 2 of length 2 rather than 1 of length 4) but you need a way to do this and lead each prisoner to the box with their number in it. You could instead "shift by 1" by first opening box 2, seeing 3; then opening box 4 and see 1. As long as the number of prisoners isn't prime this would always reduce the length. But there are other modifications possible. So there is lots of latitude for investigating this as a game.
@@thelivetoad The "add 1" is adding 1 to each box. The visual given was the first prisoner physically relabeling each box, then using the original strategy. So, the prisoner would first check box "1" (formerly known as box 100), then if that box contained a 6, he'd move on to box "6" (previously known as box 5), etc. This effectively randomizes the contents of each box, undoing the warden's sabotage.
@@bennettpalmer1741 Well, any permutation of the labels will only result in the same cycle structure as before, so it cannot undo the warden's counterstrategy. Again, the main issue is "is there a cycle of length greater than 1/2 the number of prisoners". If yes then any relabeling maintains that reality. Some prisoner will be in that cycle. One of the ways of implementing the "shift by x" strategy (the second one I described above) would in effect traverse a positive power of the permutation. If prisoner y's number is in a cycle of length L then a power of that by a divisor D of L will reduce it to D cycles of lengths L/D. Of course you don't know the length of the cycle that contains your number and at any rate you have to make sure to implement such a strategy so that your number is in the cycle you end up traversing. (See my first example above.) The beauty of the original strategy was that by starting at the box labeled with your number you'd traverse a cycle guaranteed to contain the box with your number in it. Remember, the warden will not release you if you al find a box with a relabeled version of your numbers -- you have to find the box with your number in it as put there by the warden.
@@thelivetoad Let's just create a hypothetical scenario. Box 1->3 Box 2 ->4 Box 3->1 Box 4->5 Box 5->2. We have two cycles, 1-3-1, and 2-4-5-2. If we add 1 to all the box totals, we get Box (5+1=)1->2 Box (1+1=)2->3 Box (2+1=)3->4 Box (3+1=)4->1 Box (4+1=)5->5. We have 1-2-3-4-1 and 5-5. The cycle structure has changed.
“Reverse Derrick” has to be a euphemism.
For a position, I guess
I remember watching full footage of matt playing dice and calculating some coprime numbers. And I spotted a mistake in it. I wrote a comment with that mistake, tagged it and checked if anyone else has found it earlier.
And Matt hasn't tagged me in a correction:(
Edit. With Matt I can watch tee getting cold and I find it interesting.
I'm reporting that Matt failing to tag you in a correction needs correcting, and therefore I expect to be tagged in a correction. I await my reward.
Gotta love how he got out the shirt he was wearing in the video he got reverse dereked in
"The reverse-Derek" sounds like a sex position.
I love how you all get along very well.
Has oil been reverse-derricking Derek this whole time? It has certainly been being derricked for way longer Derek has been Dereking.
There's no disputing that.
The shirt is everything
:D you have won :) Just kidding - I would love to see more videos about showing how important is to fix or let others to fix mistakes and how important is to go with that and don't get stuck on wrong solution because of ego. Thank you for fun :)
this whole video is just LOL. i just love the personality you bring to the table...
It would be awesome to get corrected by Derek or any of the edu communicators.. but still, I’ll try to be as correct as possible.
Matt puts out a lot of content. Getting corrected is inevitable for anyone over the long run.
I think you have a typo and meanr lingon?
Schlong ring?
@@edwardlane1255 thanks meant “long run”, edited.
@@tim40gabby25 lol yea I meant schlong ring
@@Mutual_Information - inevitable in the long run that it would be corrected I guess - as you obviously meanr the typo tp be there
I remember watching the veritasium video and thinking "OH, i know this one, was it mat or someone else?"
Glad you cleaned it up
You're a true scientist. You're proven wrong and then are absolutely magnanimous about it.
Strict definition. I laughed so hard at the end. Great video!
Where is your shirt from Matt? It’s awesome!
I cannot express how much joy the ending of this video brought me.
On brand. I love it. I also love that he's wearing the same shirt as when he got Dereked.
Edit: wait, there's no... Video. UA-cam is confused. It just keeps trying to buffer, but can't play video.
edit 3, OK nevermind. It was UA-cam being dumb.
Yeah, the video has behaving strange for me, but I managed to watch it
Edit: just a coincidence, I think the UA-cam app bugged.
I've not touched it. Must be UA-cam still caching it etc.
I get a lot of buffering and codec rendering issues on the Android app, pausing and minimizing tends to do the trick, at least if the video is all artifacted right after an ad (it's always an ad that breaks the codec into smeary rainbow pixels). I have issues maintaining wifi connection from upstairs sometimes, but UA-cam is losing connection and coming back online waaay more often than I have issues with in other apps. It's just not very stable. Google seems to keep "fixing" things that weren't broken.
Someone even already pointed it out, but Derek realizes 2 years later. Poor Derek.