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

>> ^brycewi19:

That's an absolute thing of mechanical beauty.
Too bad it seems limited to just the multiplication function.


It can very obviously do addition. Every crank adds the number on the side to the number on the top, so just by changing the side between cranks, you've got an adding machine.

Less obvious is subtraction, not shown here. The hand crank on top pops up for subtraction. There's a red or silver ring on the crank that's exposed to make it obvious which mode you're in. Doing this engages an alternate gear set causing the number on the side to be subtracted from the total rather than added.

Multiplication, as demonstrated, is just adding repeatedly.

Division can be done by clever use of multiplication and subtraction. See http://www.isi.edu/~finn/curta/curta.html.

See the following video for a demonstration (but with no real explanation) of finding a square root:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haaCoVrGd6k

http://videosift.com/video/Numberphile-5-and-Penrose-Tiling

>> ^hpqp:

Poor @shinyblurry, methinks you grasp the straws too much. Ask the majority of Americans who America's N°1 enemy was during the Bush years, and you'll get "Bin Laden" or eventually "Osama Bin Laden". Hardly any (if any) would properly name him as "Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden". It's no wonder a first century writer and political activist writing against the person in power would use the name his audience knew.
I can't believe I actually had to spell that out to you (oh wait, yes, I totally can).


I would say you're the one grasping at straws here; is it that you will just believe anything anyone says that agrees with your preconceived notions about the bible? It doesn't say the number of the nickname or title of the beast, it says his name. More importantly, the number 666 will be so identified with the antichrist that you could use it interchangeably with his name and everyone would know who you were referring to. This clearly wasn't the case with Nero. Further, he didn't fulfill the prophecies which would identify him as the antichrist.

>> ^swedishfriend:

shinyblurry! So who was the riddle about? What is the name you think fits best?


It is still a mystery that has yet to be revealed. The antichrist is said to be a world leader who comes about during the end times and will seize power during an economic crisis. He is also said to negotiate a 7 year peace deal with Israel. He will consolidate his power and become the head of a one world government and economy, having authority over every nation and the ability to regulate all commerce. Midway through his rule he will declare himself to be God and cause the entire world to worship him in a one world religion. He will also have a supernatural power to back up his claims.

The major sign we are in those times is the reformation of the nation of Israel. That the Jewish people are back in their homeland after 2000 years is the definitive sign that we are in the last days. An additional sign that this is getting close is when the Jews build the third temple. Right now, they are in the preparation stage, having already built the implements for the temple and also training priests to serve there. There are many other signs..here is a good video describing some of them:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Neros name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

Bin Laden's name was Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden.
Why awe they twitewing so?

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Neros name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

Bin Laden's name was Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden.


The point being that his full name doesn't add up to 666. Not only that but Neros original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. So arbitrarily picking out Nero Caeser as his name because it adds up to 666 and saying this is who John is talking about doesn't cut the mustard. This wasn't who John was talking about, because the man of sin has not yet been revealed. It was prophecy for the future, not for Johns present.

Many thanks!
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
*quality

Your video, 666 - Numberphile on the Mark of the Beast, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I liked this one better heh.
>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Thats NUMBERWANG!

>> ^maestro156:

>> ^heathen:
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that some infinite sets are more dense than others, rather than bigger?
Whether or not the numbers of an infinite set could theoretically be listed both sets are still infinite in size.
If you take the set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) and the set of integers (.. -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...), you will see that the infinite set of natural numbers is encompassed within the infinite set of integers. Thus the infinite set of integers is "bigger" by any measure.
If you prefer to look at the set of integers within the set of real numbers, you could reasonably use the term "denser" since there is an infinite and uncountable set between any given pair of integers, but bigger is still a reasonable term.


Not exactly, as you can pair up every integer with any natural number in a one to one relationship. Bigger usually always means "more of". There is no meaningful way to say that any set of numbers that can have a 1 to 1 relationship with any other set of numbers is larger. The fact that one set can eat up another set and still be of the same "magnitude" infinity is pretty amazing, but not really indicative of "size" in the typical sense. For instance, take the set of numbers infinite half's from 0-2, and the set of numbers from 0-1 inclusive of ends. So, you have

(0:2)0...1/4...1/2...3/4...1,...5/4...3/2...7/4...2

(0:1)0...1/8...1/4...3/8...1/2...5/8...3/4...7/8...1



Notice 2 things; one, every time you go and make a new set of halfs for the 0-2 set, it eats up all the similar numbers in the 0-1 set, however, set 2 will also create a new set that doesn't match up...ad infinitum. We didn't have to start at these particular halfs, this is just the list order I chose, there are infinite other sets with the same numbers but different orders. Also note, that the every number from the top set is a 1/2 multiple of the set on the bottom. Every number from set 1 can get a number in set 2 by way of multiplication by .5, the revere is true of the other set. In fact, if you don't include the end point for the set of numbers from 0-2, then 0-1 has more numbers in it than 0-2 because a one to one relationship can't be established for 1 (because in set 2, if you multiply 1 by 2 to get a number by our multiplication factor you get 2...which is not included!)...so the set of numbers from [0-1] is greater than the set of numbers from [0-2).

Infinity will drive you nuts! I have heard that the human minds has evolved to think to the number 7 without abstraction. Beyond 7, you venture into a realm for which your mind has no naturally evolved tools.

>> ^maestro156:

>> ^heathen:
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that some infinite sets are more dense than others, rather than bigger?
Whether or not the numbers of an infinite set could theoretically be listed both sets are still infinite in size.
If you take the set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) and the set of integers (.. -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...), you will see that the infinite set of natural numbers is encompassed within the infinite set of integers. Thus the infinite set of integers is "bigger" by any measure.
If you prefer to look at the set of integers within the set of real numbers, you could reasonably use the term "denser" since there is an infinite and uncountable set between any given pair of integers, but bigger is still a reasonable term.


What if we were to talk about the numbers between 0 and 10, instead of 0 and infinity?

Some sets would be listable, and some not. In one number line there would be 10 numbers, and in others an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 10.

However we wouldn't say that some tens are bigger than other tens, as 10 always equals 10.

Even though it would take longer to list all the three decimal place numbers between 0 and 10 than it would to list the integers between 0 and 10 it doesn't make the first 10 larger than the second.

>> ^heathen:

Wouldn't it make more sense to say that some infinite sets are more dense than others, rather than bigger?
Whether or not the numbers of an infinite set could theoretically be listed both sets are still infinite in size.

If you take the set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) and the set of integers (.. -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...), you will see that the infinite set of natural numbers is encompassed within the infinite set of integers. Thus the infinite set of integers is "bigger" by any measure.

If you prefer to look at the set of integers within the set of real numbers, you could reasonably use the term "denser" since there is an infinite and uncountable set between any given pair of integers, but bigger is still a reasonable term.