Tags for this video have been changed from 'chicken mcnuggets, chicken nuggets, numberphile, numbers, mathmatics' to 'chicken mcnuggets, chicken nuggets, numberphile, numbers, mathmatics, brady haran' - edited by BoneRemake

Ok, so I thought about it a bit.

If I'm right he first part of the trick with the cutting doesn't really do anything at all to the position of their 3 cards. The first ace will always be the 6th card, the second the 22nd, the 3rd the 38th and then there are 14 cards behind that to make up the 52. Its pretty clear that any even number card here will be face down. On the second pass the order is reversed, and the numbers halved. So the 1st ace will be 8th, then 16th, then 24th, then 2 cards behind to make the 26. Order reversed again. 2nd 6th 12th etc.

I can't give a complex mathmatical reason why those card positions give those results, but in a practical sense its very easy to work out. Take a deck in new deck order, perform the same filtering process and look at the final 3 cards. There position in the new deck gives you the placement you need. The sorting process is ofc completely deterministic so its just a matter of getting the right cards in the right place. In this case he just...puts them there and creates the illusion that they have been shuffled when they haven't (all the cutting does is changes the order of the "filler" cards.)

I used to do a similar trick where you'd have 13 cards from Ace to King. You'd then spell out "Ace", and for each letter you'd remove a card from the top and add it to the bottom. On the last letter you'd turn over the top card, an Ace ofc, remove it and continue with the remaining 12 cards. Spell out Two, turn it over etc etc. Once you got to your last card you'd make a big joke of "shuffling it to the bottom" and turn it over to reveal a Joker. You could easily work out the order just by working backwards. I impressed a few girls with that...just not the smart ones.

Anyway, I think I got it?

>> ^spoco2:

I'm a little annoyed that the teacher used a double negative incorrectly: "Now you don't know nothing"... erm, so he knows stuff then


There's a school of thought that double negatives re-inforce each other, creating a hyperbolic effect rather than a simple mathmatical logic.

I ain't never ascribed to no high-falutin' bullshit like that, no how.

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^messenger:
I was thinking the same as you two, especially about the level, but then again, anybody who thinks they're going to understand relativity without a very strong grasp on mathematics is, well, like me, totally deluding themselves that they can ever really understand it. But still I plod on, starting with a couple hundred hours of Khan Academy videos. Hopefully there'll be some quantum physics ones up there by the time I'm through the Linear Algebra, Calculus and Physics playlists.>> ^dannym3141:
As much as i love science, i really can't appreciate this style. I watched a few bits and found that the language he used was over complicated for simple ideas, he talked very quickly over even mathematical content and in a fairly monotone style which only made it more difficult to follow, and the visuals weren't very good either because they were utterly filled with text - the whole point of visuals is to simplify.
I think anyone would get more out of even a half decent text book.

>> ^Jinx:
Yeah, this is perhaps too advanced for somebody without a very solid foundation of maths. Still nice though.


Yeah, I think you're right. Mathmatics is the language of Science. People are turned off by seeing equations with wierd triangles in them, and letters with subscript 1s and 0s when its really just shorthand for things they already understand. I think it would be possible to describe almost all the contents of this video in plain english with simple maths, but it wouldn't be nearly as concise or precise.
Basically. I watched this video because my 16yr old sister has been doing relativity in school and I thought she might find it useful. After watching for about a minute I realised she wouldn't get any of it.


I'm doing physics at a master's level right now, i understood the video because i already understood the physics, however the maths explanations were too fast and confusing for me to even relate to the maths that i already know must appear! It's only when i saw it on a huge screen of formulae that i strung it all together.

As for your sister; that's why i mentioned the text book. This is degree level stuff, and anyone understanding it either already knows it or would get far more from a textbook anyway. Tipler 6th edition for example explains this in less time (!) and better.

It's just a bad presentation, but i knew it would get 10 votes and i'm happy to see you lose your p. (to bloodscourge that is, ofc)

>> ^messenger:

I was thinking the same as you two, especially about the level, but then again, anybody who thinks they're going to understand relativity without a very strong grasp on mathematics is, well, like me, totally deluding themselves that they can ever really understand it. But still I plod on, starting with a couple hundred hours of Khan Academy videos. Hopefully there'll be some quantum physics ones up there by the time I'm through the Linear Algebra, Calculus and Physics playlists.>> ^dannym3141:
As much as i love science, i really can't appreciate this style. I watched a few bits and found that the language he used was over complicated for simple ideas, he talked very quickly over even mathematical content and in a fairly monotone style which only made it more difficult to follow, and the visuals weren't very good either because they were utterly filled with text - the whole point of visuals is to simplify.
I think anyone would get more out of even a half decent text book.

>> ^Jinx:
Yeah, this is perhaps too advanced for somebody without a very solid foundation of maths. Still nice though.


Yeah, I think you're right. Mathmatics is the language of Science. People are turned off by seeing equations with wierd triangles in them, and letters with subscript 1s and 0s when its really just shorthand for things they already understand. I think it would be possible to describe almost all the contents of this video in plain english with simple maths, but it wouldn't be nearly as concise or precise.

Basically. I watched this video because my 16yr old sister has been doing relativity in school and I thought she might find it useful. After watching for about a minute I realised she wouldn't get any of it.

yeah Really. These statics are wrong.
I know that some vaccines are good, but I also know them some of these imperfect mixtures are toxic mistakes. i'm not convinced that all the vaccicnes that are pushed onto the kids are a good thing. I remember that a few years ago that you mentioned that you have a personal stake in this fight, I know you are more educated than me about this subject, but I still have my fears. And this video doesnt do anything to to soothe my fears. This guy says things like they are facts . they are not facts! He tries to be funny and he isnt. Watch again, hes not funny , and his story is lame( historicly and mathmaticly), this is a bad video IMO.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Really?>> ^csnel3:
Nice advertising for big pharma.
Shouldnt this also be in the Fear channel?
Who paid for this?

how sad that during the dark ages,when europe was in a fundamentalist stranglehold it was the nations of islam which had created the most egalitarian societies at that point in history.

humanity also owes islam a thanks for saving a portion of the library of alexandria,mathmatics specifically.

1500 years later fundamentalism is once again attempting to choke humanity into submission.a rigid and backward interpretation of biblical texts which in their time were meant to free humanity is now used to enslave humanity.

why a fundamentalist (choose your flavor) would dismiss such a rich history and which gave us so much art,science and culture.(lets remember the first schools and hence the first scientists were religious).this just boggles my mind.

to defend certain text just because YOU have given it supreme authority and to deviate even a micron,even if overwhelming evidence to the contrary is provided,is just a failure of imagination.sadly the fundamentalist sees any disagreement with biblical text as somehow refuting god,so they are forced to defend the indefensible.

i am an apostate.
and i approve this message.

>> ^Sagemind:

I'm convinced, without a doubt that the world is round.
But, the wind idea is interesting/facinating, and the question of would I get dizzy standing on the axis of the planet if I were used to standing at the equator, are all good questions.
Does anyone have a link that may discuss these phenomenon? ... Sometimes an explanation is more convincing that saying, "Well that's a stupid statement or opinion." Maybe someone schooled in this area (or who has more spare time than others)can guide us to some interesting reading on this. <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">


It's a frame of reference issue. It's harder to define mathmatically, but the view point that the earth is standing still and the rest of the universe is revolving around it is just conceptually valid.

The wind argument assumes that the atmosphere is not part of the earth and should be sitting still while the earth rotates beneath it. However, the physical planet applies more force to the atmosphere than the surrounding vacuum so eventually, the atmosphere will also rotate in sync with the planet itself based on Newton's laws.

I want someone to tell me mathmatically at what degree of lean does that boat need to be at in order to clear that space. You have 80' and 65' to work with...give at least a foot of buffer clearance.

Hah! This is from my hometown!

I can't NOT *promote the PI. Been there once during an Einstein exhibit, and they had giant chalkboards completely filled with mathmatic equations that made no sense to me. So, just for my own amusement, I hung behind the tour and erased 2 numbers off one of them.

I probably seriously ruined someones day

I should note, however, this specific video doesn't take place IN the PI, it's just from a random highschool.

>> ^EMPIRE:

here's a fucking tip:
You're not bench pressing someone, if that person isn't sitting right above you.
i can't explain the mathmatics involved, but neither the wiki or the spaniard are bench pressing even close to the girl's total weight.


Yea the woman's body was not directly over the working muscles. I'd have to agree.

here's a fucking tip:

You're not bench pressing someone, if that person isn't sitting right above you.
i can't explain the mathmatics involved, but neither the wiki or the spaniard are bench pressing even close to the girl's total weight.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'beautiful, evolution, mathmatics, nutrient delivery' to 'beautiful, evolution, mathematics, nutrient delivery' - edited by rottenseed

cosmic. malcolm gladwells genius, as well as his 'fro, have been haunting my dreams for about week now. which leads me to conclude that his genius and the size of his righteous 'fro are directly proportional. using mathmatics to analyze history and history to analyze the present and the present to analyze the future makes me extremely happy. and also extremely irritated that math and history have been bastardized by public education. and that infact, history was introduced into public education under completely bastardized pretenses.... adlfjadslkjfaldskj!

>> ^jonny:

Really? So, you'd be ok with local school boards deciding that their basic science curriculum should include the alternate theory of the sun revolving around the earth?

Yes. Teachers and communities should be able to choose what they want to focus on. My experience is that if you hand a teacher a curriculum he doesn't believe in, he'll just do a half-assed job and skip to what he thinks is important.

Also, the market has ways of regulating quality and correcting bad decisions. One is criticism from outsiders. If that fails, low standardized test scores, rejection letters from colleges and job applications will make parents get the message and demand better quality.

>> ^rembar:
If you want to follow a strict constitutional viewpoint, carry it to its logical conclusion: NO state and NO government under the United States Constitution whatsoever has the right to use its power to deny teaching scientifically-accurate material to students in public schools. Decisions about teaching scientific curricula, or any other public school curricula for that matter, should be left up to the only people qualified to make such decisions, and we happen to have already hired those folks. Those people are teaching our children in public schools every day. Decisions over teaching evolution are not for the federal OR local governments to make, it's for the teachers and school officials, the people who are required to be educated on the topics they teach, to decide.

You've just made the case for the libertarian platform of limited government. Libertarians defend that the government should be shrunk down to the bare essentials because politicians are completely incapable of making competent technical decisions.

When Ron Paul says that the federal government should stay away of education, he's not implying that "states rights" will fix the problem. If you watch the New Hampshire Town Hall Q&A session (which aired along with that Fox debate RP wasn't invited to), you'll see him making the point that parents and teachers should be responsible for each child's education. Just like the federal government should delegate functions to the states, the states are expected to further delegate and keep regulation to a minimum.

I'm an engineer who took an interest in education, so after I got my pure mathmatics degree I also became a licensed math teacher. I'm completely opposed to government interference in education. To me, Brazil (my country) represents a textbook example of education central planning gone wrong. 9th grade public school kids read and write at 5th grade levels, consistently finish last in international benchmarks and each government decision actually makes things worse by providing cosmetic solutions and more regulation.