That was the guidonian hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidonian_hand

its from the middle ages, and is the beginning of musical notation.

Ok, then I'll remove the tag since I made a notation....this one is safe.

Well, it does offer more gluing surface than a straight V cut, and in various directions. Both of those things should add to the strength of the joint. That said, it does seem a repeating 'saw tooth' pattern might do even better.
Odd, on youtube, it did have a 'patent pending' notation when he showed the pattern/blade. I didn't see it when I watched it again here.

It's possible to learn it from sheet music, or more likely guitar tablature where there are special notations for string specific techniques (hammer ons, pull offs, slides, tapping, etc).

That said, if you're technically accomplished enough to play that song, you would hopefully have developed a good enough ear to learn most of it by listening to the track.

ah thankfully 04.12.15 means april rather than decemeber as i first feard (silly US date notation).

Been a while since I've studied this stuff, but the way I'd do it is as follows:

Chance for a flush (I'll shorten this to %Flush) is:

%FlushHeart + %FlushDiamond + %FlushSpade + %FlushClub

%FlushSuit = %Atleast4OfSuit

Here we are gonna calculate the odds of drawing 4 out of 4 cards of the correct suit, and simply ignore the 5th card. If that card is always of the same suit, awesome, if it isn't, well that doesn't matter anyways, since there is one of each suit already in play. Since there are 5 positions that the don't care card could be in, we have to multiply the result by 5.

%Atleast4OfSuit = 5 * (#OfSuitInDeck / #OfCardsInDeck)*(#OfSuitInDeck-1 / #OfCardsInDeck-1)*(#OfSuitInDeck-2 / #OfCardsInDeck-2)*(#OfSuitInDeck-3 / #OfCardsInDeck-3)

Run that for each of the four suits in the deck, add the results, and you should have your answer. The above can of course be written more concisely using other notations, but a lot of people aren't familiar with those.

If we ignored the other players to make the calculation more concise, we would have:
4 * 5 * 12/48 * 11/47 * 10/46 * 9/45 = 237600/4669920 = 5.09% chance
If you want the exact odds for this paticular hand, it should be easy to adjust to fit.

Obviously, they shift drastically at the flop and every card afterwards.

No, if it is not your video, even if it is a family member's or friend's you are free to post it.

I will notate that the motion to ban is to be disregarded. and upvote the video. I acted upon your previous response.

Also, please upvote your own video submissions. It is encouraged.

Geez, guys, this isn't wrong, you're just nitpicking on notation or trying to apply conventional wisdom to a counterintuitive proof. If it's so wrong why does everyone who does math or physics professionally have the same incorrect opinion about it!

radx is right.

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function
(Emphasis mine)

because of the series definition for zeta when the real part of s is greater than 1, this fact is sometimes (mis)used to state

zeta(-1) = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12

which is only true in a very informal sense (i.e. this is just an abuse of notation, and the series does not actually converge to this value).

You are correct, the way it is written in the title is wrong. One possible notation as I was taught many years ago would be to add an "R" for Ramanujan above the equals sign to point out that we're talking about the sum of a diverging infinite series.

No idea if it's the correct notation, especially since I've seen different versions of it.

That said, there are multiple proofs that the Riemann zeta function of -1, which is the infinite series mentioned above, does in fact equal -1/12.

As a reminder, the Riemann zeta function is this:

zeta(s) = sum(n=1,inf) 1/n^s

If you restrict it to real numbers, it converges for all s>1, so by evaluating it at s=-1, you are messing around with a diverging series, which is why it looks so funky. It's a holomorphic continuation outside its defined area and it seems to work for theoretical physics. And it gives me a headache.

It's a trick of notation really.

1+2+3+4+... is the same as
1x^1 + 2x^2 + 3x^3 + 4x^4+.... where x is 1.
The sum of that series is 1/(1-x)^2 or in this case 1/0

Division by zero is undefined (tends towards both positive and negative infinity)

Yup - this is the ultimate Rock Piano Band Herosmith notation scheme.

Scientists use scientific notation, or "standard notation" as he describes it. Why? Because it's accurate and you don't need a stupid name to describe it. Personally, I'd love to see news papers write 4.5E9 or 4.5x10^9. Why should we take the quantitative comparisons away from these numbers. The difference between a million and a billion is just the letters "m" and "b", where as the difference between 10^6 and 10^9 is of a magnitude of 3.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

We're not perfect and as was mentioned this is a gray area. There are reasons given in each individual post why the examples you cited were included. Also, we've been around for six years - our culture is a living thing and evolving. With six years worth of video content you are going to find things that support or condemn your position.

We try for consistency and we try to follow the guidelines but citing precedence is my least favourite way of supporting a position on VideoSift. You'll always be able to cherry pick - and it sounds a little too much like "why are you picking on me?"

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm very glad that the community that I choose to associate with doesn't approve of watching people die.

That's a very nice sentiment and one that I share with you. I have always appreciated that every time I open a horrific video here, there's comfort in being able to presume that as disturbing as it may be, the people involved all survived. This is something many people take for granted or just don't care about, but it's something I value highly about VideoSift.

Well I'd just like to point out that a number of the videos I linked in a previous post, near all if not all of them depict(ed) scenes where people were dieing. Many if you follow them to their source have stories about how many died in the accident/event being shown in the video. I do not think the shuttle or WTC footage should be removed, but it does show scenes were people did not survive. And the building burning shows the fire that ended up killing 100+ people when it was all over.
Beyond the clear newsworthy events (WTC, Space Shuttle) what makes the other videos suitable? The soldiers peeing on corpses is much more graphic and in your face with the death aspect than this video is, since you can see the act happening with the corpses (hopefully dead at this point...hopefully) in view of the camera.
I just want some kind of acknowledgement that putting a news reporter before this video would not change the content of the video. Or a ticker bar at the bottom.....or a watermark in the video......the contents and happenings of the video would remain the same.
I see the plane crash video I linked to as exactly like this video. The person flying either had a hardware failure or mistake that caused him to nose dive into the ground. You know he died either on impact or shortly after. The only difference is one is a plane and one is a car. I know we can all put ourselves in the driver's seat of a car, but we can set ourselves apart from piloting due to lack of experience. This may account for the notation on this video, I want to identify whatever it is that this video has that set it apart from the others.
The police shootings are in the same scenario, but most us aren't cops. But most of them show poor choices that led up to it, and maybe we feel we wouldn't make those choices as a rational person...so the video is OK because it demonstrates a level of behavior that will result in your death that none of us feel we will reach. A car crash accident is not left up to willful choice in most cases.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm very glad that the community that I choose to associate with doesn't approve of watching people die.

That's a very nice sentiment and one that I share with you. I have always appreciated that every time I open a horrific video here, there's comfort in being able to presume that as disturbing as it may be, the people involved all survived. This is something many people take for granted or just don't care about, but it's something I value highly about VideoSift.


Well I'd just like to point out that a number of the videos I linked in a previous post, near all if not all of them depict(ed) scenes where people were dieing. Many if you follow them to their source have stories about how many died in the accident/event being shown in the video. I do not think the shuttle or WTC footage should be removed, but it does show scenes were people did not survive. And the building burning shows the fire that ended up killing 100+ people when it was all over.

Beyond the clear newsworthy events (WTC, Space Shuttle) what makes the other videos suitable? The soldiers peeing on corpses is much more graphic and in your face with the death aspect than this video is, since you can see the act happening with the corpses (hopefully dead at this point...hopefully) in view of the camera.

I just want some kind of acknowledgement that putting a news reporter before this video would not change the content of the video. Or a ticker bar at the bottom.....or a watermark in the video......the contents and happenings of the video would remain the same.

I see the plane crash video I linked to as exactly like this video. The person flying either had a hardware failure or mistake that caused him to nose dive into the ground. You know he died either on impact or shortly after. The only difference is one is a plane and one is a car. I know we can all put ourselves in the driver's seat of a car, but we can set ourselves apart from piloting due to lack of experience. This may account for the notation on this video, I want to identify whatever it is that this video has that set it apart from the others.

The police shootings are in the same scenario, but most us aren't cops. But most of them show poor choices that led up to it, and maybe we feel we wouldn't make those choices as a rational person...so the video is OK because it demonstrates a level of behavior that will result in your death that none of us feel we will reach. A car crash accident is not left up to willful choice in most cases.