This is interesting. The definitions of the terms in which a question is posed, determines the nature of the answer.
@Andrew-lo5sc
11 ай бұрын
Yes. Space and time stretch, contract. When you add up 4 individual hydrogen atoms you can end up with 1 Helium atom as a remainder depending on the location of the original 4 atoms adding up.
@Shuffler..
11 ай бұрын
No
@draco_2727
11 ай бұрын
I think she didn't get the literal question, she went with the ideological answer. She probably has not read about the woke movement. Tbh her answer on that point was disappointing (maybe trying to be too smart or overthough the subject). Edit: for someone talking about context, she totally missed the context.
@vicaya
11 ай бұрын
She specifically mentioned that for different number systems, the answers could be different. e.g., for base 3 numbers, 2+2=11; for base 4 numbers 2+2=10.
@jedser
11 ай бұрын
She lost me at ‘there’s no absolute truths in mathematics.’ Saying that 2 and 2 may not be 4 in some other math world is fine; but in the shared world in which precise definitions or values represent objects of measurement, then there are absolutely absolute truths. The world that comes to mind where 2 and 2 is not 4 is in Orwell’s 1984.
@thetobyg
10 ай бұрын
There are no absolute truths…
@kennethedwards3095
10 ай бұрын
Absolutely true 👍🏾 😇🫡
@jedser
10 ай бұрын
@@thetobyg Maybe in Oceania and Trumpia, sure. But in the real world, if you need four cents and only have two, then it's absolutely true that you need two more cents. Otherwise, you won't have enough to buy common sense
@radientbeing
11 ай бұрын
The total number(cardinal number) of different mathematical geometric constructions (smooth/non-smooth) is equal to 2(mathematical point, missing point)^aleph1 = aleph2; this is equal for 1-dimensional, 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional spaces etc. I lean towards discovering rather than inventing this.
@joeerau
11 ай бұрын
Frankly, she was just a tad too woke for me. She went off on an unrelated tangent regarding 2+2 does not equal 4. I will never understand how mathematics, as it has involved, is any way racist regardless of who made or where a contribution has originated. If I missed her point, fine. But I still think she engaged in gobbledygook and new speak.
@samueldeandrade8535
2 ай бұрын
What? Please, tell me you are kidding ...
@guidor.4161
11 ай бұрын
I believe "native" cultures did not always understand how to live with nature better, they usually had less efficient tools to destroy it. For example a lot of the European forests were already destroyed in pre-historic times due to farming activities as well as charcoal making etc.
@lawrencetorrance7051
11 ай бұрын
Her contention that 2 + 2 is not always 4 “to research mathematicians” boils down to saying that if you change the definition of two or plus, then the answer isn’t necessarily four. It’s a basically meaningless and I dare say disingenuous point. Anything to score a point for ideology I guess.
@rocklee5231
11 ай бұрын
It’s not just research mathematicians, it’s relevant in applied sciences. I haven’t listened to the cast yet, but she’s probably just commenting on how there are different types of numbers. Scalars add simply, but vectors don’t. A scalar pair of twos would as to four. A pair of vectors with magnitudes of two would only sum to four if they were identical in direction.
@lawrencetorrance7051
11 ай бұрын
@@rocklee5231 She's commenting on the "controversy" about whether math should have right or wrong answers. Her example of 2+2 maybe not being 4, is a hand wavy way of implying there shouldn't be wrong answers. But it's just an ideological gesture on her part. With further fleshing out, she would admit that in any given concretely contextualized math problem, any given answer is either right or wrong. If it's "maybe", then the problem isn't fully specified. A charitable reading of her point, is that in school, students should not be made to feel stupid if they don't get the right answer. But her point can be taken to ridiculous extremes. If a student thinks 2 + 2 equals 5, it probably won't help them to invent a new math system in which their answer is correct. It will help them to understand why their answer is not correct within the common system.
@44yyBBaakk
11 ай бұрын
@@lawrencetorrance7051 I though the charitible interpretation would be that in research mathematics even the basic dogmas may be subject to question. However, I presume this attitude may only cover 0.000001% of math research area. Therefore, it seems like she agrees with the ongoing ideological movement of acceptance, but gives herself a way out with this small research area.
@lightien
11 ай бұрын
What is sad is she knows very well what is actually being represented or changed. I am not sure why people want their words not to mean anything. Humans are animals but literally everything in life is the result of the chance of you existing. Mathematicians may be smart enough to grasp that life is basically a roll of dice with a few obtaining the top dice roll scores. Despite this, society has weirdly fixated on everything being literally equal despite basically nothing being equal in nature. You have people telling others what they should like and do, simply because diversity isn't representative of an individual but instead perpetual racism and sexism. It is not surprising for science to have stagnated when you have a bunch of people being forced into a career which they must publish studies yet they are mainly there because society told them they should be there. This forcing is objectively harmful, causing little results...contradictions...deaths. People are no longer individuals but only numbers for quotas. We are all trying, but some are trying harder than others. Somehow many people believe in communism yet if I told them they made more money than me and we need to make it equal, they would think I'm absurd. It is like telling obese people that obesity is what prevents disease. As long as they believe that then it will be true yet it ends up killing them. Their idea of love is hatred, for the truth, for the meaning of words and their own existence.
@lawrencetorrance7051
11 ай бұрын
@@44yyBBaakk Rather than interpretation, maybe I mean motivation. The "controversy" about math having wrong answers stems from the fact that lots of students are made to feel dumb in math class, and those students are then lost permanently to the pursuit of the sciences. The hope is that those students aren't really less talented or suited to mathematical pursuits, and if they aren't made to feel stupid, they'll stick with it until they establish their ability.
@joelvirolainen590
11 ай бұрын
Most people understand zero when they are told that the item they bought costs all their money, and they have none left. Having no money has a very real meaning.
@kennethedwards3095
10 ай бұрын
I used to feel that way also. Until one day I took a deep breath and realized that as long as you have health, strength and soundness of mind, you have all the money it takes to meet your immediate needs. That's step one. Then rinse, repeat and improvise when necessary.
@drumhikeandski
10 ай бұрын
Her diatribe concerning no "right" answers is an abuse of what she previously condemned: she's setting herself above the audience with some implied math knowledge and saying "actI know and you dont." As a mathematician her argument is trivial. As an early comment pointed out, sure, if I change the definition of two or addition (eg mod arit,) then the answer isn't four. Still there is a correct answer. Well, I paused the interview, so perhaps have spoken prematurely. Please Brian, be an adult an push back!
@HugoHabicht12
4 ай бұрын
Hited people scream like you 😂
@rhqstudio4107
10 ай бұрын
One of my favorite discussions in while! I always say -it's a miracle there are only ten numbers, and ten isn't one of them. Zero needs more attention than it has gotten so far.
@kensho123456
10 ай бұрын
Nein.
@ByronGoodman
10 ай бұрын
What?
@kensho123456
10 ай бұрын
@@ByronGoodmanWhy?
@Shuffler..
11 ай бұрын
31:46 : "... I've used some Category Theory to understand the interactions between people. What I do think it helps with is understanding the interactions of groups of people within structures because unfortunately our society is made up of power hierarchies ..." It looks to me as if she is trying to use Category Theory to come up with a model for _Intersectionality._ The Wokeness is strong in her.
@JDHobbs
10 ай бұрын
Yeah, she blew her cover exactly at that point. Then goes on to explain how white-male Europeans oppressed everyone. The actual point is that these college of ed "types" or categories have destroyed math education in the US.
@HugoHabicht12
4 ай бұрын
Nö, what does„wokeness“ actually mean? I think it is an empty word.
@samueldeandrade8535
2 ай бұрын
She's a walking joke.
@bigfootpegrande
11 ай бұрын
So glad to be introduced to brilliant minds and ideas. Thanks both!
@mykrahmaan3408
Ай бұрын
Normally it is mentioned that zero is essential for any system of numbers with positional value. Yet a system of numbers with positional value, but without zero as well as negative numbers, is not only possible, but essential for integrating ARITHMETIC, GEOMETRY and PARTICLE PHYSICS. Below is the example of a sequence upto 20 of a system with positional value with base 9 without zero: Base 10 ~ Base 9 1 1 . . . . . . 9 9 10 11 11 12 . . . . . . 17 18 18 19 19 21 2o 22 and so on. This can be done for any base. Even the binary system can be represented with 1 and 2 instead of 0 and 1: 1) 1 2) 2 3) 11 4) 12 5) 21 6) 22 7) 111 and so on. The Copernican mediocrity assumption and the first law of thermodynamics prohibit the only practical possibility that TIME and LIFE be both derived (not just explained) particle physically if particles are generated at the Center of The Earth. And these particles (generated towards other Centers around it in cubes i upto i = 3000) can NOT be represented by any arithmetic with less than 3000 DIGITS as their sizes differ non-uniformly, hence can only be represented by unique digits corresponding to particles with successive elements of non-uniform size differences among them. Standard model as well as the periodic table are "proved" by their applicability to nonliving matter using calculations with particles assumed to have sizes in uniform multiples . But the particles that cause the DIGIT perceptions in our minds have non-uniform size differences and are multi trillions of times tinier than photons. Hence, they cannot be represented by any mathematical formula with uniformly varying digits and no nonliving instrument can ever be sensitive to them, rendering experimental and observational science ~ that depends on "formulae with uniformly growing DIGITS", and "measurements ONLY by NONLIVING instruments" ~ a meaningless exercise for detecting life function. In addition, the Cartesian geometry with arbitararily chosen negative and positive directions has absolutely no relevance whatsoever for particles generated at the Center of The Earth.
@NotNecessarily-ip4vc
11 ай бұрын
[Monad in mathematics, science and technology]: Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point [Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]: Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
@Shadow_B4nned
11 ай бұрын
"Is math real?" Yes,. It's a real tool that can be used to describe real and unreal phenomena with real and imaginary numbers. Zero is an interesting number because it’s both real and imaginary. For example, you can describe the state of an object as having 0 charge. This means the object exists (it’s “real”), but no electrons are moving (hence, the current is “0”). Without the concept of zero, we wouldn’t be able to accurately describe such a state. So, in this sense, zero plays a crucial role in our mathematical descriptions of the world.
@funkyhairman
10 ай бұрын
I wish she would elaborate on the 2+2 logic. I really respect the social concept but I don't understand the math. How does that work in what situations. I am going to read her book maybe that will help. If there are other references, let me know.
@timbranniganmusic3458
11 ай бұрын
Great interview, Brian! I could listen to her ideas all day. Great stuff, thanks!
@xenophagia
11 ай бұрын
Everything she said was brilliant... Except for the whole white supremacy nonsense. I found that quite hypocritical of her, and I think it's antithetical to her goals. Other than that, what she's doing is great.
@icybrain8943
11 ай бұрын
she packs that nonsense into her books too unfortunately
@lawrencetorrance7051
11 ай бұрын
Meanwhile, asians are the most successful group in america. I wonder if she worries about asian supremacy, of which she is clearly a part, with all her success.
@Mordred478
11 ай бұрын
There was an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in which Willow goes off on one of her super brainiac rants, and when she finally finishes talking, Xander turns to her and says: "You have too many thoughts." When Dr. Cheng was deep into her monologue about zero, I knew how Xander felt. ;-)
@RWin-fp5jn
10 ай бұрын
The subject is great. Eugenia is fun and engaging. To many, the miracle of complex numbers is what our reality is all about. Why is it that we need complex numbers to cross into the quantum world to make calculations there? It seems we don't know. But surely we must WANT to know, if we are actually interested in the the ToE that combines the physical world of relativity (the grid of space and time) to the quantum world (the grid of energy and mass). If we find the physical explanantion behind complex number then surely we have come to an end in our quest of the ToE after 100 years of failures, right? Right? So then, let me give you the underlying physical equivalent of complex numbers; Study the nature of 'quantum leaps' of electrons in atoms and we all agree that in the world of QP the grid is defined as energy (inverse space) and the clock is defined by mass (mass equals inverse time, Sir Roger Penrose 2020, substituting E=hf into E=MC2). Consequently, in our spooky QP world, speed is then defined in [J/kg] which equals [Nm/kg] or gamma*[m2/s2] in our spacetime terms. So then, if our QP world compensates for our spacetime world, this means that for any speed in our world expressed as [m/s] we MUST have a compensating speed defined as [m2/s2] in the quantum world. Full stop! Thats impossible because [m/s] surely can never compensate for its squared value of [m2/s2] . True. Unless we insert a magic trick and use the prefix of i2=-1 in the quantum world. Then both speeds cancel always in this dual physical setup we have known now for 100 years. Thats all there is to it. So now we see. Our dual physics forces the existence of complex numbers in math. Without it, there would be no equilibrium on any scale in our cosmos. There is no other mathematical construct more important. Our good friend Isaac Newton kind of got a good start with his conservation of energy, but the true conservation Law is the one above. The grid changes the moving object and the moving object changes the grid. They don't cancel out at all. There is an equilibrium via the INVERSE dual relation of measures (mass time energy space) and our continuum functions (inertia, clock, potential, grid) with our quantum world. Math of complex numbers simply gave us the derived corresponding tool to use this truth. We were allowed to use the math, just not to allowed to see the underlying physics. I'd say after 100 years, the pivot number of 1 deserves our appreciation as well....Quite ingenious to design our world around the number one, wouldn't you say?
@sludgiebear
10 ай бұрын
I quite liked Eugenia, even though I disagree with some of the things she stated (some of which, admittedly, out of her wheel house). ZERO INDEX I feel the 2000/2001 millennium "topic" is an issue of argument being muddied from multiple fronts: perspective and framing of the count (very much like the "first floor"/"ground floor" issue), how we discuss the current count of the year socially, as well as education. For example: socially, we'd say: "we're *in* the year 2023", but we're actually not. Instead, 2023 full years have passed since zero and we're technically "in" 2024. It also doesn't help that our count for days and months is inconsistent to the count of the year: days and months start at 1, but our years start from zero. I feel that if we spent more time teaching our kids to better understand both the framing and inconsistencies within some of our systems - in general - we'd have less confused adults running around muddying the waters further. I prefer zero to be the beginning point of any count because - especially in such examples - we're talking about distances, and there'll always be a distance of zero from which to begin. Differences in perspective and framing, as well as understanding, is what conjures such debates. What irks me most is that elevators/lifts don't always elevate/lift. 😆 AI, ML, LLM, ETC If her only example of why she feels AI is not a risk is that they're bad at selecting Ads for her, then I'd urge her to transpose such an experience to the fact we continue to propel ourselves to relying upon technology and AI/ML more and more, across many different fields and implementations/focuses. We've come to heavily adopt, and we inevitably come to rely upon, technology more and more. So, imagine, for example, a surgeon relying upon AI/ML technologies during a medical procedure. Or, perhaps, like some have certainly tried to do (in the USA, at least): utilise AI/ML within legal proceedings - which have been criticised for bias. As humans, we have flaws. Do we really want to risk compounding those flaws into an AI/ML system which could dictate our livelihood, innocence, or even - dare I say it - right to exist? It's a very real risk if left without appropriate oversight, and how many of our world leaders and politicians understand even the fundamentals of such systems enough to truly comment? POLITICS ETC IN EDUCATION It's crazy to me that a discussion on methematics included questions based in politics and racism, but I'm not devaluing the notion because I recognise the political and tribal divides running somewhat rampant within certain societies. It's pretty sad to me, as I feel we're in somewhat of a state of social devolution, but I hold hope in that we'll surface from the next "wave" more enlightened and more wise. REVITALISING EDUCATION Whilst at college, I remember seeking out a physics professor to ask a question (physics was not what I was studying).The first professor I found, I politely introduced myself and asked my question, and he responded with something to the effect of: "Good question. I don't know. Let me get back to you". A short time later we saw each other and he explained what he'd researched which answered my question. I've always respected that: not only did he validate that I had a good question, he admitted he didn't know off-hand, and he took the time to research an answer for me - and I wasn't even one of his students, nor a physics student! I wish I remembered his name. I'm sorry, professor!
@matthewcerini699
11 ай бұрын
To compute anything, both humans AND computers need to first translate real world quantities and relationships into their abstract mathematical representation, then apply the transformations, then translate them back to the real world. Computers have an advantage in that they don't get bogged down by keeping track of large numbers of recursive levels like humans. That Eugenia doesn't readily acknowledge the + operator in 2+2=4 in the context of the real numbers is the obvious context in 98% of all applications and then says this is related to white Europeans using technology to intentionally destroy the planet makes me uncomfortable. That said, I agree that we have lost much indigenous knowledge, especially in growing healthy food, due to ignorance and greed (originally in the name of efficiency), not intent to harm the planet. The sad truth is that as we speak, globally, people (including people of color) are still transitioning to destructive technologies and ignorance is no longer a valid excuse. BTW, Confidence comes from a happy childhood, trusting yourself to take risks and to go places others dare not go, and asking "clever" questions of your teachers. 😄
@busybillyb33
11 ай бұрын
It is maths, Dr. Keating. MATHS! Always! MathematicSSS!
@timjohnson979
11 ай бұрын
It's an abbreviation. It's whatever the abbreviator wants it to be.
@otomarjupiter45
11 ай бұрын
Dear Prof. Keating, machine can represent inf similarly as human brain can. And it already does, in language of symbols and formal rules. If it complies with solid math theory it is basically indifferent from our gymnastics with inf. Even Gpt3.5 can do it pretty correctly in simpler tasks. It is just a symbol game, domain of all languages
@JamesVytas
11 ай бұрын
9:57 is the word ‘abstraction’ also ambiguous. Or does it simply mean low resolution?
@Callum29D
11 ай бұрын
People who are good at 'math' should not write "haha here's another math book for kids to show them how truly amazing it is"..... They should simply advise people who aren't very good at math to write the book instead. In the end, a person with 130+ IQ ironically has no concept of what life is like for people between 95-105. That formative school experience ultimately stops people from wasting their life trying to punch above their weight.
@MagruderSpoots
11 ай бұрын
Sorry to see her give approval to woke nonsense.
@גבריאל-ח3י
11 ай бұрын
Mathematics is the language of quantification. It is an abstraction of physical quantities and can not prove its own consistency or describe relationships that can not be quantified.
@44yyBBaakk
11 ай бұрын
great point, seems like what Kant wrote about. But it case math is "real", do we need to distinct the degrees of "real" in Physics and in Math?
@____uncompetative
11 ай бұрын
It isn't Math. It isn't Mathematic.
@SierraNovemberKilo
11 ай бұрын
Mathematics (it's plural, hence maths)
@LarsIsReal
11 ай бұрын
Mathhead
@samueldeandrade8535
2 ай бұрын
Sure. Because that's soooo relevant.
@mykrahmaan3408
Ай бұрын
It is absurd to claim one is real, but zero is not. That "One person" of "one chair" or "one whatever" can be shown physically doesn't mean ONE itself is real. It still remains a 100 % physically meaningless adjective. Unless we establish a method to clearly specify which particle causes the feeling of DIGIT in our minds, and demonstrate it PRACTICALLY by, say turning a grey hair black using that knowledge (of course, repeatable by anybody), there is no other way to prove digits (in our mind ~ not the electrons in the chips we make) are REAL.
@wolfgangrichter6088
3 ай бұрын
We have to repeat the tremendous success of set theory in basic math education. Math education has to be based on cathegory theory in the future. Otherwise we will not be able to compete with AI !
@dhk19
10 ай бұрын
I would like to see Mr pais and Weinstein on the podcast
@HugoHabicht12
4 ай бұрын
She is brilliant. And year, the mathematical description of the world is very reasonable (cace exist in the end).
@samueldeandrade8535
2 ай бұрын
She is a joke.
@HugoHabicht12
2 ай бұрын
@@samueldeandrade8535 Why do you say that?
@savaloy666999
11 ай бұрын
3:50 Yeah? Well I find "Math" insulting. How do you like them apples? My understanding is that "Maths" is a contraction of "Mathemetics"; that is to say, the many diciplines of maths, hence the plural. Granted, it is the anglicised version of the Old French "mathematique", from Latin "mathematica", from from Greek mathēmatikē, but, since we're speaking English, I'll stick with "Maths", and you can toughen up and get over your hurt feelings. 😂
@mostlynotworking4112
10 ай бұрын
How to bake pi 🥧 is a really good book
@nunomaroco583
11 ай бұрын
Very interesting, category theory, also Stephen Wolfram defend that what is important is the relaction about points ......realy impressive
@Age_of_Apocalypse
11 ай бұрын
"Zero is not real?" If I empty your bank account and you have ZERO dollar left, you find that ZERO is painfully real. 🤣
@SuperBlinding
10 ай бұрын
Having Zero Debt is good though (wink )
@tomholroyd7519
11 ай бұрын
She's one of the Catsters --- if you like getting excited about Monads and the Yoneda Lemma
@samueldeandrade8535
2 ай бұрын
Thanks. Now I know I should NOT pay attention to Catsters.
@evenodds8791
10 ай бұрын
Why does 2+2=2*2 Why is 1+1>1*1 Why does 1+2+3=1*2*3 Why don’t we have 12 digits like a clock or playing cards?
@BarriosGroupie
10 ай бұрын
How to bake pi has to be one of the craziest books I've ever read
@Eric06410
11 ай бұрын
I like Noam Chomsky’s critique of post modernism.
@jimlee1498
11 ай бұрын
1+ 1 = ???, another example of why our higher education system is crumbling. Be very careful who educates your children.
@Mark-z6y7b
11 ай бұрын
Chatgpt said if a mom tells a dad joke, it’s still a dad joke and moms don’t have stereotypical jokes.
@wulphstein
11 ай бұрын
Math is only useful if you know what you're doing. If you calculate 2+2=4, but don't know 4 what? Then where are you? Lost.
@Thomas-gk42
11 ай бұрын
A very smart and soulful woman and an interesting and substantial talk, thank you
@NotNecessarily-ip4vc
11 ай бұрын
Newton's calculus is inferior to Leibniz's calculus: Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus there is, what would now be called, a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus the limit is a separate operation.
@bigfootpegrande
11 ай бұрын
16:00 the gene, the DNA sequence bearing information is coded by a mRNA equivalent. The point where the first base of the first coding unity (codon) is deemed +1 and the immediate 5' (leftward) base before that is -1. There is no 0 point and that sort of annoys me (ref. genetic promoters) .
@DrBrianKeating
11 ай бұрын
What's your favorite takeaway from this episode? Make sure to join my mailing list to get *FREE* notes & resources from this show! Go to 👉 briankeating.com/list 🚀
@kennethedwards3095
10 ай бұрын
I wish I could find his comment, but one guy somewhere in the thread summed it up perfectly. To paraphrase, he basically said that in a world where the truth is your enemy, you eventually have to launch an assault on the veracity of mathematics.
@tnekkc
11 ай бұрын
My son writes Android code for Google, but carries and Iphone.
@Sven_Dongle
10 ай бұрын
Quisling, he is.
@btaranto
10 ай бұрын
Wonderful talk! Tks!
@petefromdewoods5157
11 ай бұрын
I'm an android heathen 😂😂
@SuperBlinding
10 ай бұрын
Eugenia Cheng is doing very well in " " The White Mans World " " = = Maybe the White Men ain't so bad.
@ryngrd1
11 ай бұрын
Are 0 and 'nothing' the same thing? Nope, zero is a number, nothing is a concept. This fact is fundemanel to the framework holding 4d spacetime together. 🤯
@ludviglidstrom6924
11 ай бұрын
Numbers are concepts
@ryngrd1
11 ай бұрын
@@ludviglidstrom6924 there is a difference. 0 is used in conjunction with the other 9 numbers, 'nothing'' is not used in this context giving it a different meaning
@samueldeandrade8535
2 ай бұрын
@@ryngrd1 what a fool you are.
@josephboomtv7811
3 ай бұрын
Sincerely, she has one of the most beautiful voices I’ve ever heard
@dr.merlot1532
5 ай бұрын
Maths
@TradinTigerJohn
10 ай бұрын
Hi Brian, I agree with you that race should be left out of math. Not even anthropologists can agree whether the concept of race is valid or not. When someone doesn't know that 1 + 3 = 4, it isn't because they're unsure if the numbers are octal or hexadecimal or quaternions or whether they've gotten rusty on Volume 1 of Bertrand Russel and Alfred North Whitehead's Principia Mathematia. No, it's because no one ever taught them basic arithmetic. To weave a fantastic tapestry of hypotheticals in category theory or set theory or number theory or any other advanced higher mathematics or logic discipline to apologize for and attempt to introduce (im)plausibe deniability for anyone's lack of the most elementary education is to expend huge amounts of intellect in an attempt to justify a society's dereliction of duty. The same logic could lead to publications like "Health, nutrition and clean water have alternatives." They do, actually; sickness, starvation and dysentary. Teach kids, not x race kids, just kids, that 2 + 2 = 4. Later in life, if they have the prediliction to persue higher mathematics, that's great. But in the mean time, they will be equipped to understand if the app they're using is returning an absurd value given the inputs they've made. This kind of education has even been shown to extend to and provide a foundation for other areas of critical thinking. Sometimes even the most brilliantly concocted Politically Correct creativity can use a stiff dose of common sense.
@Centurianarv
10 ай бұрын
Just ordered her book on Amazon, she's so good
@dougg1075
11 ай бұрын
I was in a Fix and saved by zero
@lwss1617y
11 ай бұрын
Ok, fine discussion, interesting views and points.... However, let me say something related to Wigner's remark (1960) regarding "... neither understand nor deserve". Hilbert's research on L2 spaces took place around 1900, long before Quantum Mechanics and the identification of the key role played by L2 spaces,.... The point is, did anybody whisper into David Hilbert's ears "do this research because humans deserve to know these structures for understanding the future Quantum Mechanics which will come in 25 years...". Also, beyond the formal consistency of the mathematics involved, do we understand why the book of Nature is written (for humans obviously) in this beautiful language? As for the 2 plus 2 and entering other realms ....well...
@GiorgiMelqadze-o6i
10 ай бұрын
Thank you for the interesting and informative video. I would like to say only one thing that could be interesting to both mathematicians and physicists (and perhaps to all people): in the realm of pure ideas, where mathematical truth resides among other ideas, 1=2=3=... & 123... ("" means "is unequal to"). I could explain it, basing on Aristotle and Hegel, but that would be too long a comment.
@samrowbotham8914
11 ай бұрын
I don't like maths I do enjoy Chess, Philosophy, Theology and Thanatology and realized that we are in a dream world. Many years ago doing an advanced physics course I learned how to manipulate equations and I even formulated an equation that shows over time all events dubbed conspiracy turn out to be true: C/T=V. Then I found out that English polymath Francis Bacon the real author of Shakespeare's plays stated it articulately in words. "Truth is the daughter of time, not authority. I will buy the book because I am a bibliophile: “A good book is the lifeblood of a master spirit.” John Milton
@barfyman-362
10 ай бұрын
I found these arguments to be very weak. I don’t understand why you didn’t push her to clarify more. I sense that this woman is very “surface level” in her thinking… Brian, this was shallow and loose. I like my intellectuals deep and tight.
@noahabraham8701
11 ай бұрын
13 prime Number line (-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.) Then you can make sense of your imaginary numbers…
@donaldharlan3981
9 ай бұрын
2 + 2 = potato 🥔
@samueldeandrade8535
2 ай бұрын
"Is Math real?" This is not a simple question. This is a stupid question.
@edcunion
11 ай бұрын
Brilliant, it (math) appears to be more persistent and less transitory than say any individual RNA or DNA comprised entity it constructs in the physical world? As it's been used by these twisted helical molecular ladders and their subsequent evolving species subconsciously, in a long- conscious spacetime assembler, to evolve a form of IMU flight capability, in use by but two examples- dragonflies and hummingbirds, that obviously, with the help of spacetime acceleration and electromagnetic radiation information, figured out merged sensor IMU controlled flight Hamiltonians before humans did? With both of these creations being long bathed in magnetic and acceleration fields both illuminated by photons, on a spinning wet, rocky and sandy ball's surface, with inertial and momentous gyroscopic and tidal effects to boot! Or to bootstrap? To paraphrase a bard, to boot or to bootstrap, that is the question? Too much Joe at the crack of dawn, delightful video all around!
@wulphstein
11 ай бұрын
I can't trust a scientific community that doesn't believe in reality. If I step on your toe, we can both agree your toe is real.
@evenodds8791
10 ай бұрын
But how do you even know anyone else is real without being anyone else? They could just be props while the only things that actually exist are you and your mind
@ebog4841
10 ай бұрын
SHES SO POORLY EDUCATED IN HISTORY AND ANTHROPOLOGY BRUH "non-white" BRUH these people vote. these people not only get respect, BUT THEY DESERVE IT, TOO! Doctor Eugenia Chang absolutely deserves recognition and respect as a human and an accomplished professional... BUT SHE LITERALLY KNOWS ZERO HISTORY. even worse, she has basically ONLY misconceptions concerning sociology, history, and culture. these people are high-level mathematicians, and have great sway in our culture. this is insane... they, like Dr. Chang, GENUINELY believe they are making good points regarding society and morality. absolutely insane.
@rustyspottedcat8885
11 ай бұрын
Very calculated lady.
@samueldeandrade8535
2 ай бұрын
Sure, 2+2 equals anything is a great calculation.
@datamatters8
11 ай бұрын
Ms Cheng is very insightful and a great explainer. Re: Category Theory- She would make a great friend.
@teslasapple
11 ай бұрын
If this conversation lasts longer than 30 seconds then you know we’ve gone into the weeds…math isn’t real.
@kennethedwards3095
10 ай бұрын
To say math isn't real is equal to saying that words are not real. While all that is proceeds from it.
@teslasapple
10 ай бұрын
@@kennethedwards3095 …clearly, we’re not doing Physics now.
@kennethedwards3095
10 ай бұрын
@@teslasapple if you insist, as you wish..
@nunoalexandre6408
11 ай бұрын
Of course it is!!!!!!!!!!!! There is Nothing that does not exists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@RoboticusMusic
10 ай бұрын
This was pretty boring.
@evenodds8791
10 ай бұрын
All math is irrational. Nothing is equal, ever. There is no such thing as a negative number, you can only take away what you already have. There is no such thing as a fraction, when you break something in half you now have 2 things. That applies to all
@marinoceccotti9155
10 ай бұрын
She's a concert what ?
@MagruderSpoots
11 ай бұрын
I find "Maths" oddly offensive.
@4pharaoh
11 ай бұрын
Wow! She got weird and woke quick didn’t she.
@doy1ey
11 ай бұрын
Why is the word maths insulting
@kennethedwards3095
10 ай бұрын
Because for him, it ignores colloquial normative.
@merlepatterson
10 ай бұрын
Many mathematicians have no idea how to describe their mathematical equations in plain language because the solution is imagined within their mind on a mathematical level. It's like imagining a 10 dimensional manifold of surfaces, but we can't imagine 10 dimensional manifolds which can be easily explained in plain language. A 10 dimensional manifold has never been objectively observed outside of the mathematicians mind and my guess is that no two mathematicians imagine 10 dimensional manifolds the same way. Could one create a mathematical description of a physics problem which results in a Zebra that has a Donkey's head? Yes, they are both in the same genus family tree of horse, but a Zebra-Donkey simply doesn't exist and never has.
@radientbeing
10 ай бұрын
Study surreal numbers (allows arithmitic with infinite numbers all derived with simple game theory), number theory, LOF laws of form by g spencer brown, set theory, meta-mathematics; The ah-ha you get from the combination of these subjects will blow your mind.
@merlepatterson
10 ай бұрын
@@radientbeing That may be true, but one could also have an "Ah-ha" moment imagining that a Zebra-Donkey actually exists. Therein lies the rub.
@kensho123456
11 ай бұрын
She is wonderful and 100% right - I will watch this many times to gain a fuller appreciation.
@DrBrianKeating
11 ай бұрын
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
@kensho123456
11 ай бұрын
@@DrBrianKeating ALL of it. She is right about the "cleverness" and related concepts - she has all the answers IMHO
@kensho123456
10 ай бұрын
@@DrBrianKeating What most impressed me young Brian was the concept of math as relationships which to me is like saying "physics" (because that is what physics is according to Bertrand Russell).
@danielmccarthyy
11 ай бұрын
It pleases me to find a kindred non- concerer a out AI. I have been annoyed since the year 1982 when someone first expressed to me a genuine fear that computers would take over the world. This leads to an awareness of the difference in evil of computers (E = 0.00) compared to humans (E = insert your own estimate).
@samueldeandrade8535
2 ай бұрын
Are you insane? Why do you think the evil of computers is zero?
@danielmccarthyy
2 ай бұрын
@@samueldeandrade8535 Because I have written their software. Understanding is more informative than blind fear.
@samueldeandrade8535
2 ай бұрын
29:19 urgh I can't believe some people take this crazy woman seriously.
@dixonjavier
11 ай бұрын
Good episode as always.
@theomnisthour6400
11 ай бұрын
Math is just another language that the creators had to evolve from the most fundamental principles. God started with one, and asked "What am I not?" to get zero and two. sets and subsets followed. Eventually God tired of numbers and turned them over to AI to work on more exciting symbols.
@nunomaroco583
11 ай бұрын
Hi, very interesting, great talk, its possible translate mathematics equations to the piano?
@chriscurry2496
11 ай бұрын
Sure, in an arbitrary way… But far more interesting is that we can translate piano pieces to numbers with a single mathematical concept. In fact, we can use this concept to translate ALL sounds and many other types of information to numbers. It’s called a Fourier Transform.
@nunomaroco583
11 ай бұрын
Thanks, for explanation. ...
@bartholomewtott3812
10 ай бұрын
I stopped listening when she started droning on about white supremacy. I should have known this wouldn't be about MATHS. The parts that could have been interesting were very superficial.
@oraz.
10 ай бұрын
I say her use a Hasse diagram or something like that to explain the identity-privilege hierarchy with complete confidence. Absolute complete garbage.
@RandallNewman
10 ай бұрын
Team heathen iPhone hater
@Lesser302
11 ай бұрын
Hope you don’t mind me commenting along I got 1+1 = once 11 with a hole in a brunch of possibles as in Once around. To calculate the unseen background has an intuitive measurement about it Have to have some rules I guess. It was the 2D that confused me. Once I could visualise the whole picture found it less intimidation As in ♈️⭕️📶😐 11:44 🔘 only use I have for it is 10s etc 12:47 😂 yes I do 🐘😂 No not real one 😂 If some one explained xyz has x-1, y-1, z-1 would of been a lot easier for me 😮😂 my bad should of read more 😂 earlier.😊 Ai was great she liked my crab creation Dreamtime story 😂. My son asked Ai how to find love. We laughed for hrs reading the print out 😂 Great job cheers 🙌🏼👣🙋🏻♂️ Alchemy of cooking 👍🏽 29:29 No 2 relates to3/ 5/ 7 or 9 over here.🎉🙋🏻♂️🙏🏼 As in X Y Z / x+-1cubed y+-1cubed z+-1cubed Just my answer 👀 35:18 I alway took it as meaning Anglo doctrine as in on paper 2d. Clay has another dimension in plain sight. As sand has imaginary texture and lines know yet not seen when discussed, as in a dot map is topographical with direction lines with distance in a single mark🙌🏼 44:11 if one is to look out side 👀 simple questions stop simple mistakes 46:05 Those before us threw one rock and had two 😂🙋🏻♂️ Yet what do the one seed See❤
@RC-wi6xm
11 ай бұрын
math is a tool
@BlackHatAndy
10 ай бұрын
She had me all the way until her "White European, exclusionary, etc." bullshit.
@fingolfin_6909
10 ай бұрын
She lost me with the noble savage trope.
@yaserthe1
11 ай бұрын
I like this lady, not only is she clever, she just seems like a really nice kind person. Alot of clever people are arrogant, she seems humble.
@Sven_Dongle
11 ай бұрын
I cant believe you have this chick on. I have watched all her videos. They call Category Theory "abstract nonsense", but I believe it underlies fundamentally new and untapped data management techniques.
@boobio1
6 ай бұрын
I stopped listening when she started droning on about white supremacy. I should have known this wouldn't be about MATHS. The parts that could have been interesting were very superficial.
Пікірлер: 202