No Stupid Questions

For the uninitiated, the monty Hall problem is a good one.

Start with 3 closed doors, and an announcer who knows what's behind each. The announcer says that behind 2 of the doors is a goat, and behind the third door is ~~a car~~ student debt relief, but doesn't tell you which door leads to which. They then let you pick a door, and you will get what's behind the door. Before you open it, they open a different door than your choice and reveal a goat. Then the announcer says you are allowed to change your choice.

So should you switch?

The answer turns out to be yes. 2/3rds of the time you are better off switching. But even famous mathematicians didn't believe it at first.

Goldbach's Conjecture: Every even natural number > 2 is a sum of 2 prime numbers. Eg: 8=5+3, 20=13+7.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_conjecture

Such a simple construct right? Notice the word "conjecture". The above has been verified till 4x10^18 numbers BUT no one has been able to prove it mathematically.

Multiply 9 times any number and it always "reduces" back down to 9 (add up the individual numbers in the result)

For example: 9 x 872 = 7848, so you take 7848 and split it into 7 + 8 + 4 + 8 = 27, then do it again 2 + 7 = 9 and we're back to 9

It can be a huge number and it still works:

9 x 987345734 = 8886111606

8+8+8+6+1+1+1+6+0+6 = 45

4+5 = 9

Quickly a game of chess becomes a never ever played game of chess before.

This is my silly contribution: 70% of 30 is equal to 30% of 70. This applies to other numbers and can be really helpful when doing percentages in your head. 15% of 77 is equal to 77% of 15.

Seeing mathematics visually.

I am a huge fan of 3blue1brown and his videos are just amazing. My favorite is linear algebra. It was like an out of body experience. All of a sudden the world made so much more sense.

This is a common one, but the cardinality of infinite sets. Some infinities are larger than others.

The natural numbers are countably infinite, and any set that has a one-to-one mapping to the natural numbers is also countably infinite. So that means the set of all even natural numbers is the same size as the natural numbers, because we can map 0 > 0, 1 > 2, 2 > 4, 3 > 6, etc.

But that suggests we can also map a set that seems larger than the natural numbers to the natural numbers, such as the integers: 0 → 0, 1 → 1, 2 → –1, 3 → 2, 4 → –2, etc. In fact, we can even map pairs of integers to natural numbers, and because rational numbers can be represented in terms of pairs of numbers, their cardinality is that of the natural numbers. Even though the cardinality of the rationals is identical to that of the integers, the rationals are still dense, which means that between any two rational numbers we can find another one. The integers do not have this property.

But if we try to do this with real numbers, even a limited subset such as the real numbers between 0 and 1, it is impossible to perform this mapping. If you attempted to enumerate all of the real numbers between 0 and 1 as infinitely long decimals, you could always construct a number that was not present in the original enumeration by going through each element in order and appending a digit that did not match a decimal digit in the referenced element. This is Cantor's diagonal argument, which implies that the cardinality of the real numbers is strictly greater than that of the rationals.

The best part of this is that it is possible to construct a set that has the same cardinality as the real numbers but is not dense, such as the Cantor set.

The one I bumped into recently: the Coastline Paradox

"The coastline paradox is the counterintuitive observation that the coastline of a landmass does not have a well-defined length. This results from the fractal curve–like properties of coastlines; i.e., the fact that a coastline typically has a fractal dimension."

Imagine a soccer ball. The most traditional design consists of white hexagons and black pentagons. If you count them, you will find that there are 12 pentagons and 20 hexagons.

Now imagine you tried to cover the entire Earth in the same way, using similar size hexagons and pentagons (hopefully the rules are intuitive). How many pentagons would be there? Intuitively, you would think that the number of both shapes would be similar, just like on the soccer ball. So, there would be a lot of hexagons and a lot of pentagons. But actually, along with many hexagons, you would still have exactly 12 pentagons, not one less, not one more. This comes from the Euler's formula, and there is a nice sketch of the proof here: .

A simple one: Let's say you want to sum the numbers from 1 to 100. You could make the sum normally (1+2+3...) or you can rearrange the numbers in pairs: 1+100, 2+99, 3+98.... until 50+51 (50 pairs). So you will have 50 pairs and all of them sum 101 -> 101*50= 5050. There's a story who says that this method was discovered by Gauss when he was still a child in elementary school and their teacher asked their students to sum the numbers.

Euler's identity is pretty amazing:

e^iπ + 1 = 0

To quote the Wikipedia page:

Three of the basic arithmetic operations occur exactly once each: addition, multiplication, and exponentiation. The identity also links five fundamental mathematical constants:[6]

The number 0, the additive identity.
The number 1, the multiplicative identity.
The number π (π = 3.1415...), the fundamental circle constant.
The number e (e = 2.718...), also known as Euler's number, which occurs widely in mathematical analysis.
The number i, the imaginary unit of the complex numbers.

The fact that an equation like that exists at the heart of maths - feels almost like it was left there deliberately.

Here's a fun one - you know the concept of regular polyhedra/platonic solids right? 3d shapes where every edge, angle, and face is the same? How many of them are there?

Did you guess 48?

There's way more regular solids out there than the bog standard set of DnD dice! Some of them are easy to understand, like the Kepler-poisont solids which basically use a pentagramme in various orientations for the face shape (hey the rules don't say the edges can't intersect!) To uh...This thing. And more! This video is a fun breakdown (both mathematically and mentally) of all of them.

Unfortunately they only add like 4 new potential dice to your collection and all of them are very painful.

Borsuk-Ulam is a great one! In essense it says that flattening a sphere into a disk will always make two antipodal points meet. This holds in arbitrary dimensions and leads to statements such as "there are two points along the equator on opposite sides of the earth with the same temperature". Similarly one knows that there are two points on the opposite sides (antipodal) of the earth that both have the same temperature and pressure.

The Julia and Mandelbrot sets always gets me. That such a complex structure could arise from such simple rules. Here's a brilliant explanation I found years back: https://www.karlsims.com/julia.html

Maybe a bit advanced for this crowd, but there is a three-way correspondence between logic, type theory (like in programming languages), and topology. Roughly we have

Proposition ≈ Type Proof of a prop ≈ member of a Type Implication ≈ function type and ≈ Cartesian product or ≈ disjoint union true ≈ type with one element false ≈ empty type

Once you understand it, its actually really simple and "obvious", but the fact that this exists is really really surprising imo.

You can also add topology into the mix:

The infinite sum of all the natural numbers 1+2+3+... is a divergent series. But it can also be shown to be equivalent to -1/12. This result is actually used in quantum field theory.

Great thread. I'm just reading and watching stuff this afternoon now

Not so much a fact, but I've always liked the prime spirals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral

Also, not as impressive as the busy beaver, but Knuth's up-arrow notation is cool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_up-arrow_notation

Godel's incompleteness theorem is actually even more subtle and mind-blowing than how you describe it. It states that in any mathematical system, there are truths in that system that cannot be proven using just the mathematical rules of that system. It requires adding additional rules to that system to prove those truths. And when you do that, there are new things that are true that cannot be proven using the expanded rules of that mathematical system.

"It's true, we just can't prove it'.

How Gauss was able to solve 1+2+3...+99+100 in the span of minutes. It really shows you can solve math problems by thinking in different ways and approaches.

To me, personally, it has to be bezier curves. They're not one of those things that only real mathematicians can understand, and that's exactly why I'm fascinated by them. You don't need to understand the equations happening to make use of them, since they make a lot of sense visually. The cherry on top is their real world usefulness in computer graphics.

The 196,883-dimensional monster number (808,017,424,794,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000 ≈ 8×10^53) is fascinating and mind-boggling. It's about symmetry groups.

There is a good YouTube video explaining it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH0oCDa74tE

Szemeredis regularity lemma is really cool. Basically if you desire a certain structure in your graph, you just have to make it really really (really) big and then you're sure to find it. Or in other words you can find a really regular graph up to any positive error percentage as long as you make it really really (really really) big.

One thing that definitely feels like "magic" is Monstrous Moonshine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrous_moonshine) and stuff related to the j-invariant e.g. the fact that exp(pi*sqrt(163)) is so close to an integer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heegner_number#Almost_integers_and_Ramanujan.27s_constant). I hardly understand it at all but it seems mind-blowing to me, almost in a suspicious way.

Incompleteness is great.. internal consistency is incompatible with universality.. goes hand in hand with Relativity.. they both are trying to lift us toward higher dimensional understanding..

The fact that complex numbers allow you to get a much more accurate approximation of the derivative than classical finite difference at almost no extra cost under suitable conditions while also suffering way less from roundoff errors when implemented in finite precision:

(obviously x, epsilon and f(x) are assumed to be real)

Higher-order derivatives can also be obtained using hypercomplex numbers.

Another related and similarly beautiful result is Cauchy's integral formula which allows you to compute derivatives via integration.

As someone who took maths in university for two years, this has successfully given me PTSD, well done Lemmy.