100 thoughts on “BBC Magic Numbers Mysterious World of Maths 1of3 720p HDTV x264 AAC MVGroup org

  1. Plato was definitely chilling down in the hypogeum with mind tea thinking on all this. hence i very possibly believe him

  2. Why on earth could I do A Level maths 30 years ago & not remember ANY of it now? My daughter put a practice gcse paper in front of me last eve & it was gobblediduke. Couldn’t even begin to solve the problems!!Weird thing is that maths was my fave subject when I was 17- I can’t even remember the basics now!

  3. Must disagree with the object first idea subjective dilemma, ideas always form first in human creation. Also you could measure number by absence not inclusion. A child's mind would do that quite naturally using the logic of necessity or desire. Life is more like binary calculation, just watch a horse count. Nothing is always nothing zero is only a symbol, BBC clumsy linguistic philosophy. There is no zero in one million, only one million things. yin yang thing no thing – in China western numbers are called Arabic, in Chinese numbers are pictures and sounds. 一二三四五一二。。。ling for math, mei you or you 没有 有 exist not exist. So squaring nothing or less than nothing geometrically is mere rhetoric – no good for the stone mason. So to conclude: like language there is a built in logic of quantity or meaning, then we decide to sell shit to dumb nuts and create all sorts of illusions – a bit like the Big Bang Theory which in basic arithmetic and in sin is 0 = 1. Hocus Pocus.

  4. Math, Science, etc, is just thinking God's thoughts. It's not contemplating your navel about why it's so big, small, or flabby. The world and all nature is designed by someone, it's just too obvious to overlook.

  5. When did we start saying "Maths" all the time? Must be a thing, like saying "We scientists" its funny to me for some reason.

  6. I got 7 mins in, then realized that this is going to be one of those typical dumbed down BBC program where people talk for a whole hour without actually saying anything.

  7. disagree: imaginary numbers were not invented, instead they existed in dimensions mankind had no access to, so mankind hat to make an assumption, which later happened to be proven. it just took time to grow a mathematical understanding to finally be able to discover them.

  8. 5:25 "If pencils had never been invented, then the idea of a pencil wouldn't exist…but the idea of numbers would still exist." REALLY? I'd argue that, if no sentient life existed in the universe would the idea of numbers still exist? If the answer is yes, then the idea of scribing instruments should not presuppose the existence of its inventor any more than the idea of friction between material objects requires the existence of humanity or any other sentient observer. This notion becomes undetermined only if one also assumes that ideas only exist when sentient beings are available to carry out the thought, either in the past, present or in some possible future. If Barry Manilow had never been born,….now that's another matter entirely—LOL

  9. Most of the math is invented … negative numbers have a decent reasoning.. debts in ancient india was represented as negative numbers… and when debt + debt = more debt , debt divided by debt is positive slots of installments, all basic negative number properties were "invented" by Indian traders.

  10. Math is discovered since it is independent of our will but this doesn't imply the existence of a world of ideas. It is just the objective structure of reason. Reason, not mind or brain.

  11. Mathematics is a study of patterns by humans. The study is invention, the patterns are discovered. The patterns ‘exist’ whether humans discover them or not. Some, myself included, like MIT physicist Max Tegmark, suspect that these patterns are foundational, as in the foundations of the ‘physical’ world. Because (abstract) patterns exist independently of our physical world, e.g. pi is (IS!) precisely the same whether the world exists or not, patterns therefore provide a possible foundation for all of existence. Some worry that this contradicts religious principles, but it does so no more than other ideas about how the world works. Furthermore, since abstract pattern, our limited human studies not withstanding, is both ultimately infinitely infinite, and “perfect”, characteristics usually attributed to deity, perhaps it is no wonder the Pythagoreans saw it as a religion.

  12. At 40:00 et seq, it's a pity that Hannah misses the most fundamental discovery about imaginary numbers. I understand she's scraping the barrel to try to find examples of "inventions", but neglects to mention that once you have "invented" the square root of -1, you don't need to "invent" any other numbers at all to solve any of those sort of equations. To solve x*x = -1 we need i but to solve x*x = i we don't need anything else as the solutions are of the form (1+i)/sqrt2 and 'complex numbers' like those are found to contain the roots of all polynomials. There's something absolutely fundamental about imaginary numbers, far beyond anything we might "invent".

    That's an astonishing discovery and another nail in the coffin of the view that numbers are "invented".

  13. The whole problem of modern science is it considers human as a sophisticated machine and doesn't want to admit that our conscious is a gift.

  14. I see this concept as being side-tracked. I equate it to having a pebble in one's Brown shoe. Why would the color matter if the goal is to regain comfort through the removal of said pebble? It's not the intended goal. Asking if math is a construct or a realization is this. We are diverting attention from the task at hand. Or foot, as the case may be.
    It is all only tags. Assigned values for our understanding.
    Assigning value to something is a mechanism by which humanity is able to accept their place within the realm we have labeled "reality".
    We are instinctually afraid of the dark. We don't know what is out there, possibly something horrifying which will painfully devour us.
    Without these values, these tags, we are relegated to exist with that which we fear. The dark…the unknown.
    Math is a value (or values…perspective) by which we try to shed light on the unknown.
    Unknown to us, not to the universe.
    Ultimately, it is all about labels.
    The universe doesn't require them. We do.
    Math is there because of our needs, our necessity. It is necessary for us to cast away those shadows. To see into the dark.
    A virus doesn't require tangentially-assigned knowledge to present its form. It forms without any understanding or preconceived notion of permission.
    I am not claiming math isn't necessary nor relavent.
    All I'm saying is we assign a value because we need a crutch.
    We need that tag to allow us to step further into Plato's cave and dispel the shadows.
    Step into the darkness of the unknown.
    Has math always been there?
    Yes.
    No.
    Who cares?
    The essence of math has always been there, according to our limited abilities. This can be evidenced by "chaos".
    Nature as we, with our limited grasp, understand it, assume it abhors a vacuum. It will abolish any instance where there isn't some form of chaos.
    At least, it seems that is the value(s) we have attributed to it.
    Who's to say it isn't trying to revert back into some placid miasma from which all has sprung and by which, these patterns and flows are nothing more than the water of reality simply following the quickest and easiest path out through the drain, to allow itself to return to its original state.
    I believe we are attributing more value to that which we currently do not understand than is necessary.
    Accept it is there. Whether it be through some divine construct or by the nature of our coping mechanism, it is real…in our reality. All we have to do is continue exploring the many permutations within and perhaps, ultimately, we will find the answers we seek. Or realize through some momentous epiphany , understanding is a too Sisyphean task for our miniscule intellects to ever truly grasp.
    Thanks for sharing!

  15. Oh my… I shouldn't have watched this. Now I'm desperately in love. And not of maths, I should specify.

  16. Another great British doco . These women science scholars , can naturally present themselves and subject , in a manner that some of their male counterparts , can only fail dismally , to emulate . The girl scholars seem to be unburdened with vanity and ego .

  17. Humans invented language in order to communicate ideas and descriptions, I see Maths in the exactly the same way ie a language to better describe the world and the universe.

  18. The reason that i or rather j ends up being so useful is to do with the Euler relation namely, e ^ j theta = cos theta plus j sin theta. You can prove this via the series expansion of e ^ x versus the series expansions of sine and cosine which you will find on the internet ( the fact that j squared = -1 is required knowledge) . Because of this a vector on the Argand diagram ( x = Re, y = Im) can be written in polar form as well as Re + Im form . Thus the definition of e , e^x , sine x, cos x and Ln (x) are all tied together via the square root of negative one. Personally I find the first episode a bit too simplistic. For instance Roman numbers are introduced but there is no discussion of the fact that roman numbers are impossible to multiply less still divide.

    By the way, the proof that – 3 x – 3 say = 9 can be found on the Khan academy site; in short – 2 ( -6 + 6) = 0 by inspection and if we accept that -2 x 6 = -12 then it is clear what – 2 x -6 must be when multiplied out. https://www.khanacademy.org

  19. When will our documentations "start" before our narrowed European view? Always starting philosopy, here maths, with the Greeks? When finally will Chinese, Egyptian, Mayan wisdom be equally integrated in our explanations and broadcasts? Did no one in the West yet dig appropriate into this? Language problems? Seems ignorant and sad, not even mentioning other worldviews.

  20. The number line became "two dimensional" to accommodate the square root of -4.  But what about the square root of -4i?  Two dimensions doesn't seem sufficient.

  21. The key word is "imagination". The human brain is the human organism's "on-board, (sensory/experiential-)environment mapping-computer", and the "human imagination" is, in turn, that computer's "sensory-experiential simulator (or 'modeler')" faculty. The Human animal has found its 'most bio-technologically advanced evolutionary niche' specialization in the use of the peculiar sounds made by its species to "indicate" – i.e. "index" – the various "distinguishable recurring features" of its 'sensory-experiential content' (i.e. of its "on-board", sensory-environment "maps"). One of these 'features' is the sensory attribute we indicate with (in "English") the sound "four"… (etc., etc,) … And just as the relationships among these environmental "quantity" features can be reproduced by repeating specific sequences of actions ("algorithms"; "programs"; etc.), so our manipulation of our sensory "mathematical symbol set" devices – that we humans have invented and "re-engineered" over time precisely for such 'algorithmic manipulation' – according to specific consistently applied 'syntactical rules' results in the likewise 'self-consistent descriptions' ("indications") of "quantity relationships" … etc., etc.
    Ultimately the 'trick' is to recognize the 'logical distinction' between the "word" (i.e. linguistic symbol), the "(conceptual-)map" we use it to indicate/index, and the 'external environmental object' we "internally map" – a conflation that has always been, and continues to be, man's greatest evolutionary deficiency and folly…

  22. Your assertion of the use of imaginary numbers for the analysis of radar targets is BS. However, the use of imaginary numbers in certain expressions is required in determining real power as opposed to apparent power in reactive circuits. Math or "Maths" is a study of relationships. Our use of these relationships becomes more and more complicated as our science progresses. It is interesting to note that Cern has given up on math and simply slams particles together to see what happens.

  23. What happened to the people in Africa that discovered or invent it.wont hurt to investigate what do you think? I don't know just look deep in to it then make your own decisions

  24. There is no magical, parallel world somewhere where numbers exist. Our brains don;t have circuitry that "tunes" into an alternate space where numbers are located. Matematics is simply the product of neural circuitry that can manipulate symbols according to a set of rules. The symbols and the rules were invented by humans. When humans disappear (as they in all likelihood will) the mathematics will also disappear.

  25. I try to hold off on the hyperbole whenever possible, but this woman truly is very pretty. Of course, I have a thing for redheads, but she is gorgeous, regardless of her hair color. *sigh!* I think that I will watch this one more time. You know, for academic purposes. *my precious!*

  26. "Does maths exist only in our minds?"
    Well, if we went extinct, where else would it exist? Maybe a duck can count half a dozen ducklings, but the maths that Hannah is talking about goes a bit further than that. There are patterns in nature that can be resolved mathematically (eg. the nautilus shell), and those things would still exist, but the mathematics that describes them would not exist. Nature is pretty smart about finding the most efficient way of producing things with the minimum of material, but it didn't design them with maths. Think of what can be solved with soap bubbles – and they don't know zilch about calculus.

  27. Mathematicians are so imaginative. When they go to the beach, they take a sketch pad and a compass. Most dull people think only to take a bucket and spade.

  28. All life forms use algorithms programmed by DNA. DNA programs understanding engines to understand its own DNA. There is a universal nature to these life forms that lend themselves to certain harmonic behavior that leads to a certain way of thinking. Math results from this harmonic thinking that can be seen in all animals and plants. Its that nature of natural algorithms that gives us math.

  29. Many dogwood flowers have four petals. Though four can also be a special number in its own right in math, it is not a fibonacci.

  30. Can I drop a question in here? It appears I'm by nature the opposite end of the spectrum existentially. I function well with geometry, but am totally allergic to all other higher mathematical endeavors. I'm one of the few to exit high school and complete 6 years of college with NO math classes. It helped that I was off the chart with my SATs in all other catagories. And I had to go to war to make that happen. While I could properly draft out a spiral staircase in perspective, basic algebra was always 100% a complete brickwall for me. While I had a fairly accomplished career as an illustrator/graphic designer, I always wondered WHY I had this cognitive deadzone. Any input from viewers?

  31. And, funny enough, my entire life, I've only had affairs and marriage with redheads. No other would do. A curse or what, I've no clue. A rollercoaster, say what?

  32. oh please all theorys , nice HD picture that's about all that's believeable here , when someone uses theorys from past scientists I doubt it all this is 2019 my educated brit . forget the past they did not have the tools we have today and if you do research you will find 90% of their THEORYS were proven WRONG !!

  33. Look, our wonderful UK brethren, you guys seriously need to stop calling it "maths" with an "s". It makes you sound goofy and uneducated. Its just "math". The plural of math is just math. Say it: "math". Now try this: "I walked down to THE university and spent the whole day learning nothing but MATH." 'Its important that we all learn our MATH". Just "math". No S please. Treat it like the word "music". You would never say "musics". Or, "She took nothing but musics courses." Sounds dumb, right? Of course. You simply say "music courses" and "math courses". Not "maths".

  34. Interesting quote by Brian Greene at 24:00, coming from the guy who has spent his entire career pushing "String Theory"….

  35. Maths is conceptual, people have a curiosity they have a need to understand how thing are made or work, how they can be made better etc. Everything exists with relationships to everything else maths evolved as a way to describe and understand that. New systems such as "i" were implemented to give a representation that would allow us to understand something. When we come across something that is difficult to understand people will look at it until they come up with the language to understand it. But as pointed out it must be proven to follow the rules or relationships to be a valid description or understanding, it must give a predictable outcome that is the same every time for the given set of conditions. Consider that we have different number bases that have different uses, why base ten the default system, maybe because we have ten digits on our hands which makes it easier for everyone to relate to.

  36. These guys are getting very close to changing world energy production and physics too! https://lppfusion.com/proton-boron-p11b-fuel-arrives/

  37. recent studies suggest the left side of the brain is responsible for mathematics.
    So; apparently this is an old video.

  38. At 3:40 she was experiencing negative G as shown by the loose belt buckle & means that that harness better not break.

  39. Which Base is natural? We count in Base 10 but does one part of nature count in another base & still another part in a third base? How about Quantum Mechanics?

  40. Concerning Zero at 43:00 & not wishing to change the subject; instead of "Is Atheism a religion (or religious belief)?" we could ask "Is the belief that there are no Widgets in my mind, a Widget in my mind?" While others have said that Atheism isn't a religion (just the belief that there is no god in any form I contend that Atheism is like the number Zero or the color Black & has properties just as any other number or color & should be treated equally as others. I'm not going to get into a discussion about the number Infinity.

  41. If Math was invented before Man, who "invented" it? Was there an intelligence at least before we were formed in the womb, at the Big Bang, if not before? Instead of counting sheep, think on that.

  42. just like matter, math is structured in a hierarchical manner. the largest building blocks, 0-9, are similar to objects that we can touch and see.
    as you climb the ladder to the quanta scale, rules change…is it not logical to think that math would behave similarly?

  43. That voice could sell me on anything. I'd believe in whatever she wants me too, hell, I'd even give Darwin a chance. Also, this is a BBC video so why are you using it?

  44. he's not studying the violin he's fantasising about her tits. Logically its 1 AND 1 = 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 into 2 equals yeeha. So it's really mathematical group sex. Pone a friend and it's then 1 into 3 = Jeeezuz Fu****g Christ! Great this mathem… rithme… sum's stuff aint it.

  45. Mathematically speaking you are not Where you think you are. The universe will be on the head of a pin in our future.

    All our scientists are telling the story of our future. Nanobot, nanotechnology coupled with the need to use it to solve bypass operations, Man needs for nano bots to kill cancers, aids, many other pre programed Nano bots to augment us to mechanical limbs.

    How far do we have to venture into the computer power doubling every year coupled with our leaning towards entertainment ( the thing we spend most of our extra money on) in other words there is A basic drive to use Nono bots coupled with super Quantum computing power to implement the new possibilities of the technology of our being able to enter A game where everything looks real , smells real, taste real,feels real, sounds real, for all intensive purposes is real. For that matter the individual brain can be mapped. All your life’s experience is mapped to the point that in the event of your unexpected death . You can be reproduced in A universe so small as to be on the head of a pin. This is not science fiction. In fact it is where all the cutting edge science is telling us we are headed . Everything from our computer double in power every year coupled with the Quantum computing super computing even IA with A prime detective ,like Star Trek.

    All this Nano bots capable of mapping the human brain to augment humans to give people A more enjoyable experience. If it looks real , taste real , feels real, smells real, sounds real. Well wouldn’t you think it is real.

    The true nature of our world could be we are preprogrammed bioengineered dozers. Like deer who bang their antlers together instinctively. We could be ready for harvest any day now. This really is actually more likely than what most people consider their reality to be.

    My personal favorite theory is that the world is in A-super computer so advanced this universe is on the head of a pin in A huge space ship traversing through our universe planting our DNA in places that we believe it has A chance of surviving. Meanwhile we work with our A. I computer in mechanical body’s keeping our space ship on track, and kept up. Meanwhile on our time off we are born ,live, and die in A simulated life of A ancestry, or the life of a world in A science fiction world like Avatar.

    If point A is the Big Bang
    And point B is Where we believe we are in the time space continuum. Point C that I just described is mathematically speaking much more possible. Point B is A grain of sand mathematically speaking. Point C once conceivable, let alone achieved is all the grains of sand in all the beaches of the world.

    My theory of everything is All Imcohmpassing. Tit explains the great expansion ( three minutes after the Big Bang. It explains the feild Of magnetisms in the vacuum of space before the Big Bang Where time,matter, and space began. Dark energy , and matter is the programming of the universe created by God. After all God did say that he made us in their image not his image.

    Does it really matter what came first the chicken or the egg. Strange entanglement indeed. How many detentions are there? As many as the stars in the sky, all in A space ship traversing through the universe perhaps with A dead sun of our distance past. With new worlds on our horizons.
    Enjoy my theory of everything.

  46. 53:06 She plays a bit to hard for the camera. Director, "we have to find some way to get this sexy girl in a bed."
    Gratuitous.

  47. Good video, lots of info, thank you. I would have liked to have seen L/R hemisphere scan comparisons for the maths calculations 😸

  48. I think it's wonderful this lady overcame down syndrome and became a mathematician, but I wish she'd stop pluralizing the word "Math "

  49. "Numbers as God"
    But mention God created the universe and these nerds look at you as if you're insane. Math is just a complicated way of describing common sense.

  50. Why references to gods?
    References to gods have place just when one is talking about genocides, rape, slavery, incest, ignorance, violence, assassinations, war and way more immoral things.

  51. It's Hannah's nose that attracts, somewhere between Cyrano de Bergerac & Pinocchio. I fell in love with it & I could not get enough of it. It popped up in every frame in different angles & perspectives. Like Cyrano & Pinocchio's nasal contour it involves and symbolizes reality & fantasy. Love you Hannah nose and all.

  52. this is shits , it's just like asking who created the universe. mathematics is a language/tool to understand how magnificent our world. patterns and relations are everywhere we use mathematics to understand it.

  53. I think we arrange rules that infiltrate everything under the definition of MATH. There is plenty of bad math to prove there is not as much specialty to this idea of infiltration to be of consideration?

    If math is only as good as mathematician then is math a factor or a medium? I tend to believe math to be a language and a tool, keeping the importance of the source of math alive.

  54. BBC has managed to ruin something as beautiful as math and someone as likable as H. Fry with a bunch of unrelated comments allocated in something that can only be called a sorry excuse in the name of a script. Shame!

  55. I wish I could be as enthusiastic about, well, anything as this lady is about math. Maybe cheese. I might be able to work up this amount of enthusiasm over cheese.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *