6 ms·
I feel like this answer is "no, there is no reason for that to be the sequence you are seeing: it is an accident, as you can see from this careful analysis whic
by saurik 6y ago
I feel like this answer is "no, there is no reason for that to be the sequence you are seeing: it is an accident, as you can see from this careful analysis which demonstrates exactly why it is that sequence"... it is like saying "I noticed a bunch of random processes fall into a normal curve, is there a mathematical reason for that?" and saying "oh no, that is entirely on accident; here, let me show you the math for how a particular kind of random selection causes that exact distribution you are seeing, along with the equations that characterize if... as you can see, no math is involved here: this was just an accident" :/.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hinkley 6y agoIn this vein, I really enjoyed 1brown3blue breaking down why prime numbers form patterns when graphed in polar coordinates. https://youtu.be/EK32jo7i5LQ https://youtu.be/EK32jo7i5LQ
- chadcmulligan 6y agoThat is one of the most artistic expositions of mathematics I have ever seen.
- stallmanite 6y ago3blue1brown is most likely the greatest math teacher alive. I’ve looked far and wide and found nobody who competes. Any HN’ers have suggestions for other math educators working on his level?
- boublepop 6y agoI think the intention was to say only that it’s “an accident” that they are double quadratic numbers, not that they have the exact values they have. Which is intended to say that the reason is different even if the result is the same.
- Viliam1234 6y agoIs it "an accident" that 1 + 3 + 5 + ... + (2n-1) = n^2 ? I suppose the only way to get quadratic numbers "non-accidentally" would be to have the electrons stand in n×n square formation.
- xingyzt 6y agoThese are the numbers that ‘wrap’ around themselves to form squares. 7777 5557 3357 1357