Not lucky. Make a spinner like this, and it won't be perfect. Far from it. It will stop in a certain area more often. Give it a few flicks and you'll be able to reliably apply enough force so it stops in the area. Then just mark the area.
Magnets. You put one of those flat fridge magnets under the spot you want it to stop, and it's too weak to stop it when it's going fast, but once it slows down, it'll be stopped pretty reliably in the spot you want. There's still some chance to get unlucky on a spin with that method, but it brings the chances of success up a LOT. Watch spins 5 and 6 in particular. They stop way faster than you'd expect with friction alone.
This video took me 176.57 seconds to watch at 1.75x speed. That's about 2 minutes and 56 seconds. During that time, a ray of sunshine from the sun traveled about 52,971,000 kilometers. That's not far enough to have reached Earth, but it might have reached Mercury depending on the current position of its orbit. How exciting.
Actually, it's about 2 minutes and 57 seconds because 176.57 ≈ 177 = (120 + 57) seconds = 2 minutes 57 seconds. More than that, the real speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s, so the length of that ray was about 53 063 265 km. Miscalculations can lead to collapse, my dear PaulSaulPaul.
Andy could make a video on this but let's see what I can do: Let's assume you've been married for 20 years. That'd be 863122 / (365.25 days in a year times 20 years) = 863122 / 7305 = 118.155 dances - I'm going to say dances - a day. Assuming 8 hours sleep, 8 hours doing other things that need to be done, that leaves 24 - (8+8) = 8 hours for doing things like dancing. There are 8 × 60 minutes × 60 seconds = 28800 seconds in 8 hours, and 118.155 goes into 28800, 243.25 times. That's just over four minutes per dance. Impressive stamina, but I think there's something wrong with that assumption about the amount of sleep you're going to need after dancing 118 times per day. 🤔(119 on Sundays, Leap days, Birthdays, Easter and Christmas). How Exhausting.
@@EpicVideos2 the plates originally had qr codes in place of the options. Augmented reality video post production substituted the qr codes for the options, which were drawn according to where the spinner stopped. It really is that simple.
@@dougaltolan3017you'd use tracking makers not qr codes. I can't say that's not how it was done, but the guy would need to be a vfx wizard because replacing the plate with the marker lines given that it's shaky, blurry, light changes, shadows and has a spinner obscuring it, makes it a really challenging motion tracking shot. Looking close I don't see the artifacts you'd expect of such an approach.
Doesn’t this assume that you have to get every single possible fail before you get one and you do your way of expected attempts? For example assuming only the first 1/12. The expected attempt would be 12 attempts with this logic, but after 9 attempts you’d already have a 53.52% of hitting it.
Damn you really are helping me in math trying to solve your problems and if i'm stuck I can see your solution and learn something new and get better. Thanks for your work bro!
This is a bit of fun math, but obviously if you spend a few hours practicing flicks you can improve the odds significantly, also you can cheat, by, for example, putting a magnet below the target area to slow down the paperclips. Overall I doubt making this video took more than 10hours.
i do shit like this with a coworker for fun all the time, but we just estimate come up with round figures to work with for the sake of argument,, actually doing the math to this degree truly is exciting
@@Kisioj actually it's not the expected scenario It just means that you expect to get it right once in 239.76 hrs of continuous attempts You could get it right in the first hour The probability of getting only the 373248th right and the probability of getting the first attempt right and the next 373247 attempts wrong are equal
He probably made adjustments to the strength of each flick on each fail. Whether conscious of it or not, he was training muscle memory on how hard to flick a paperclip to make a given amount of rotation.
That's assuming he kept going after he got lucky There's probably an easier way, but how I would try to find the "expected" time to film this video is this: Find how many attempts it would be that the probability of having a successful one is >50%, find the average time of a single attempt and then finally multiply the two together. EDIT: I've run the numbers. At *258716* attempts, you are 50.00007% (1 - [373247/373248] ^ 258716) likely to have had at least one success. The average time of an attempt is about *2.31* sex per attempt (SUMPRODUCT of the chart at 3:00 ). Putting those together you're looking at a revised number of *166.19* hrs, or a little under seven days. How exciting!!!!!
I got one for ya Andy Math. It's another expected value problem. Start with a unmarked 100 sided die. We color one face, and roll. If the colored face lands up, we stop. If it does not land up, we color another face and roll again. If a colored face lands up, we stop. If a colored face does not land up, we color another face and roll again. This pattern continues on until all the faces are colored and we can only roll a colored face. The question is on average, what is the expected number of rolls it would take to roll a colored face?
they also could of A used weak magnets to increase the probability also you assume that landing on each spot is equally likely which its not as if you practice enough with the spinner you can eventually mostly control where it lands by applying the same amount of force in the same spot
Interesting geometry puzzle - take a 30-60-90 triangle. Now construct a 30-30-120 isosceles triangle on all 3 sides such that the side of the 30-60-90 is the base. So, if your short leg was 2sqrt(3) units long, the triangle based on it would have two sides with length 2 units. If the longest side was 4sqrt(3) then the new triangle has other sides 4 and 4. Once you've done this on all sides, connect the apexes of the 3 isosceles triangles to form a new triangle. What's the ratio between the area of the original 30-60-90 triangle and this last triangle? (Hint - I suggested the short leg could be 2sqrt(3) for a valid reason. Another hint is that if you know one weird fact about triangles - and if you know it, you saw it already - then this is a piece of cake.)
He probably measured the amount of force he needed to put or used magnets a something else to brake the clock hand. You could limit the study to at least a half of each plates.
Great job Andy! I wanted to share this because it’s interesting. These are individual events, independent of each other, I would think you should find the probability that he doesn’t land each event and multiply them together, then find that percentage and subtract it from 100. This was after reading probability and statistics by John tabla PHD, look at cardamoms mistake
I might have understood you wrong, but why would the events be independent if spinning the sixth place depends you've managed to get all previous 5 plates at the desired state?
now can u calculate the probability density function of the hours spent? this one can only be aproximated unlike the one for number of atempts which is exactly P = 1/373248*e^-(1/373248*x) assuming the plate mesurements were correct
True only if you assume uniform random distribution for where the spinner ends each time. Which is probably never actually true, because the setup can be staged for significantly higher likelihood of success on the various targets.
Even assuming he did the video fairly ( without any camera tricks and other cheats) it would not be an even chance for each part of the wheel, as he would use some calculated amount of force for his spins, and he would probably get better at it with each spin.
This seems to be assuming that success will only happen after all of the failed attempts. I think it would be clearer to say “after how many attempts would the probability of having had a success to be >50%. This number is 258,716 tries. 90% certainty would be after 859,434 tries. Sticking with the 50% number, we can then use the probability of each failure state to do a weighted average on the failure times. This gives an average failure time of 2.312s For the 50% probability, this gives 166.18 hours, and for the 90% probability it gives 552.04 hours Of course, there’s an infinitesimally small probability that they’ll keep going for a year and still not get it. This would involve 13,637,810 attempts, and the probability that you’ve not got it in this many attempts is 1.4e-14%, or 0.000000000000014%
Guess what. If you make a bump in the plate where you want the spinner to land, you can increase the chance of the spinner landing there to a near 98% rate.
Either that or it's edit each time he moves the camera from one plate to the other so you don't have the repetitions of generative fail-attempts, you would only have the primary fail-attempts to contend with. In other words, you would only have to keep trying to get the right area to start each plate. Each time the camera moves from plate to plate, there is plenty of blur and graininess to edit safely with.
I don't get why this is the expected time, isn't it the worst possible scenario? If so how to find the expected time? Like divide by the area of the distribution?
This is assuming he did it non-stop after each fail. Also it is luck based, he won't necessarily have to go through the certain max amount of time for each spin, they are just a maximum average. Also, it could be done on the first go with magnets. Also, this isn't taking account of how long he spent sticking all those plates to the other guy.
How the video was made: it was filmed in 2 spinner pairs. So he did 2 spinneres, there is a cut in the video, and a new video beginns for the next 2 spinners. You see that there is a longer gap to the next pair, so that the camera has a further travel distance that makes the jump cut less obvious.
If he didn't use magnets, then I can't even imagine the joy he felt when the last spin stopped on "turn around", and he did a great job to keep it hidden
that assumes he restarts the entire sequence if he gets a singular one wrong, the actual math would be- assuming a rate of 3.833 spinners per second - the summation of the reciprocal probabilities times the spinners per second so it would be 216.583 seconds or about 3 and half minutes. checkmate Andy Math and your throne of lies.
Ten days straight?! That's so long: do you believe your result is roughly the amount of time it took? Also, is there a way to calculate the probability distribution of the time taken? [ Thank you, as always ]
4:21 "that is a lot of secs"
-AndyMath
How exciting!
As soon as I heard that I went to the comments
Too bad it wasn’t at 4:20
"THAT IS A LOT OF SE>
@@FranticVauv ??
4:20 "it ends up being 863122 secs, that is a lot of secs."
It's also at 420 😂😂😂
@@elliotclark-rv1nv coincidince? i think NOT
@@elliotclark-rv1nvthat is a lot of leaf
lmao
sex
Well he probably used magnets
If there were magnets it wouldn't spin at all, and he'd have trouble spinning it
If you flick it hard enough it will spin, the magnets make it more likely to land on the section he wants.
@@MiguelWilson0maybe the magnet is weak, but not too weak and not too strong
@@ndnsksbdjshsjbsCould be an electromagnet
Yeah you can keep the magent at a certain distance to improve the probability of landing in the expected field
So either the guy was hella dedicated or hella lucky
Not lucky. Make a spinner like this, and it won't be perfect. Far from it. It will stop in a certain area more often. Give it a few flicks and you'll be able to reliably apply enough force so it stops in the area. Then just mark the area.
@@nowymail Makes sense to me
@@nowymail He flicks it very hard tho? seems kinda difficult to pull off consistently
Magnets. You put one of those flat fridge magnets under the spot you want it to stop, and it's too weak to stop it when it's going fast, but once it slows down, it'll be stopped pretty reliably in the spot you want. There's still some chance to get unlucky on a spin with that method, but it brings the chances of success up a LOT.
Watch spins 5 and 6 in particular. They stop way faster than you'd expect with friction alone.
@@alphazero924 Okay now I feel stupid for not thinking of that
He could have also stitched the video together, so it wouldn't have had to events in succession
i expect a weak magnet under the table
No cuts…you would see „stitching“
Or the markings on the plates were added in post production.
Nah it would have been noticeable
@@dougaltolan3017lmao but nah it couldnt
I don't think ten days of flicking that spinner would be exciting at all, Andy. 😂😂
well that just depends on what the spinner lands on. Ever played spin the bottle? 😉
@@okamiexe1501 the one time I did, the girl it pointed at said, "Ew, no way" and ran out of the room. Thanks for letting me relive that. 😂
I stopped doing math and grabbed a snack so I could relax and watch some math
HOW DID YOU DID THE EMOTE
@@sam228h42__pc
@@sam228h42__
@@sam228h42__ It's under the youtube emoji section, here's another emoji
"That's a lot of secs" 23 seconds in heaven is better than no seconds in heaven.
This video took me 176.57 seconds to watch at 1.75x speed. That's about 2 minutes and 56 seconds. During that time, a ray of sunshine from the sun traveled about 52,971,000 kilometers. That's not far enough to have reached Earth, but it might have reached Mercury depending on the current position of its orbit. How exciting.
Put a box around it
You went from “video length” to lengthwise, bruh who let you cook??
Light from the sun actually takes about 8 minutes to reach earth.
@@yusfkhayyat thus "That's not far enough to have reached Earth"
Actually, it's about 2 minutes and 57 seconds because 176.57 ≈ 177 = (120 + 57) seconds = 2 minutes 57 seconds.
More than that, the real speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s, so the length of that ray was about 53 063 265 km.
Miscalculations can lead to collapse, my dear PaulSaulPaul.
That is indeed a lot of secs, how exciting!
863122 secs, that's a lot of secs. My wife and I may be approaching that.
LOL
Andy could make a video on this but let's see what I can do:
Let's assume you've been married for 20 years. That'd be 863122 / (365.25 days in a year times 20 years) = 863122 / 7305 = 118.155 dances - I'm going to say dances - a day.
Assuming 8 hours sleep, 8 hours doing other things that need to be done, that leaves 24 - (8+8) = 8 hours for doing things like dancing.
There are 8 × 60 minutes × 60 seconds = 28800 seconds in 8 hours, and 118.155 goes into 28800, 243.25 times. That's just over four minutes per dance.
Impressive stamina, but I think there's something wrong with that assumption about the amount of sleep you're going to need after dancing 118 times per day. 🤔(119 on Sundays, Leap days, Birthdays, Easter and Christmas).
How Exhausting.
@@lagomoof 4 minutes? The best I can do is 30 secs per dance
(I perform solo)
His wife: 🖐️
And there are the speed-runners, normally they do very few secs!
4:20 is crazy
He said that with a straight face
😂😂😂😂😂 fr I thought no one noticed it
And it is in 420
The subtitles did him dirty 💀
that is, in fact, a lot of sex
There's 2 places between the 6 spins where it would be really, really easy to splice the video, which reduces the expected time by a whole lot.
Or the markings were added in post production.
I think this is how it was done, but getting the transitions setup perfect quickly would be hard.
@@EpicVideos2 the plates originally had qr codes in place of the options.
Augmented reality video post production substituted the qr codes for the options, which were drawn according to where the spinner stopped.
It really is that simple.
@@EpicVideos2 Yeah, some good skills shown off in the video production.
@@dougaltolan3017you'd use tracking makers not qr codes. I can't say that's not how it was done, but the guy would need to be a vfx wizard because replacing the plate with the marker lines given that it's shaky, blurry, light changes, shadows and has a spinner obscuring it, makes it a really challenging motion tracking shot. Looking close I don't see the artifacts you'd expect of such an approach.
What we cant calculate: How skilled he got at flicking with the right force after 10 or so attempts
what about walking back to the start
Andy math is going to be blown away when he realizes editing softwares exists
You could also practice flicking a spin to land on a certain part, allowing a much higher probability.
Doesn’t this assume that you have to get every single possible fail before you get one and you do your way of expected attempts? For example assuming only the first 1/12. The expected attempt would be 12 attempts with this logic, but after 9 attempts you’d already have a 53.52% of hitting it.
This is the only reason to learn math to watch Andy math
The monster had to wait for this whole time
Yeah, but he had all the plates he could ever eat
@@OLIVE_MANN oh this is a smart monster
Love this, would love to videos dealing with probability and odds!
How exciting, he says with an emotionless smile 😊
Damn you really are helping me in math trying to solve your problems and if i'm stuck I can see your solution and learn something new and get better. Thanks for your work bro!
This is a bit of fun math, but obviously if you spend a few hours practicing flicks you can improve the odds significantly, also you can cheat, by, for example, putting a magnet below the target area to slow down the paperclips.
Overall I doubt making this video took more than 10hours.
Yeah also you can cut the video.
i do shit like this with a coworker for fun all the time, but we just estimate come up with round figures to work with for the sake of argument,, actually doing the math to this degree truly is exciting
Or the markings on the plates were added in post production.
Time taken 23 seconds plus an hour or so.
Bro really said *worst case scenario* and didnt count the other possible ways
It's not worst case scenario. It's expected scenario. Worst case is always failing and never reaching success which is possible.
@@Kisioj actually it's not the expected scenario
It just means that you expect to get it right once in 239.76 hrs of continuous attempts
You could get it right in the first hour
The probability of getting only the 373248th right and the probability of getting the first attempt right and the next 373247 attempts wrong are equal
Love this video !!❤❤
"so that'd be basically 10 days of continuous filming without any sleep or anything. how exciting!"
He probably made adjustments to the strength of each flick on each fail. Whether conscious of it or not, he was training muscle memory on how hard to flick a paperclip to make a given amount of rotation.
i like the secs and mins canceling each other out
Considering that the plated man had to stand there with him the entire time, it collectively took 479.52 hours from both people.
i am such a child giggling at "that is a lot of secs"
Yes, another video from Andy!
How exciting.
Bro I'm a bio student but I really like to watch your content because you enjoy what you are doing
That's assuming he kept going after he got lucky
There's probably an easier way, but how I would try to find the "expected" time to film this video is this: Find how many attempts it would be that the probability of having a successful one is >50%, find the average time of a single attempt and then finally multiply the two together.
EDIT: I've run the numbers. At *258716* attempts, you are 50.00007% (1 - [373247/373248] ^ 258716) likely to have had at least one success. The average time of an attempt is about *2.31* sex per attempt (SUMPRODUCT of the chart at 3:00 ). Putting those together you're looking at a revised number of *166.19* hrs, or a little under seven days. How exciting!!!!!
I think there is a cut in 0:14, it can be others but this one is more obvious
That is expecting that the spins had the same amount of force. The guy probably set un the pins at a specific spot and knew how much force was needed.
Yep - assuming uniform outcome distribution is the mistake here. Faulty assumptions are always a risk when it comes to using (or misusing) statistics.
The probability god
I got one for ya Andy Math. It's another expected value problem.
Start with a unmarked 100 sided die. We color one face, and roll.
If the colored face lands up, we stop. If it does not land up, we color another face and roll again.
If a colored face lands up, we stop. If a colored face does not land up, we color another face and roll again.
This pattern continues on until all the faces are colored and we can only roll a colored face.
The question is on average, what is the expected number of rolls it would take to roll a colored face?
they also could of A used weak magnets to increase the probability also you assume that landing on each spot is equally likely which its not as if you practice enough with the spinner you can eventually mostly control where it lands by applying the same amount of force in the same spot
🔥🔥🔥👏👏👏❤️💙💚🌱
We all can agree that's an obscene amount of secs.
Weird, when did I not subscribe this channel, it recommend to me everyday I thought I subscribed
Thx, I needed someone explaining to fun/joke out of the video.
So how long did it take to record this math video? Long enough to grow a beard? Considering another video...
Theses also the possibility that after enough attempts he got good at using the right amount of force on each flick to increase his chances.
Do some of the times overlap?
Interesting geometry puzzle - take a 30-60-90 triangle. Now construct a 30-30-120 isosceles triangle on all 3 sides such that the side of the 30-60-90 is the base. So, if your short leg was 2sqrt(3) units long, the triangle based on it would have two sides with length 2 units. If the longest side was 4sqrt(3) then the new triangle has other sides 4 and 4.
Once you've done this on all sides, connect the apexes of the 3 isosceles triangles to form a new triangle.
What's the ratio between the area of the original 30-60-90 triangle and this last triangle?
(Hint - I suggested the short leg could be 2sqrt(3) for a valid reason. Another hint is that if you know one weird fact about triangles - and if you know it, you saw it already - then this is a piece of cake.)
A magnet. He probably used a magnet... 😅
He probably measured the amount of force he needed to put or used magnets a something else to brake the clock hand. You could limit the study to at least a half of each plates.
Great job Andy! I wanted to share this because it’s interesting.
These are individual events, independent of each other, I would think you should find the probability that he doesn’t land each event and multiply them together, then find that percentage and subtract it from 100.
This was after reading probability and statistics by John tabla PHD, look at cardamoms mistake
I might have understood you wrong, but why would the events be independent if spinning the sixth place depends you've managed to get all previous 5 plates at the desired state?
The method you propose would find the odds that at least one of them lands, but he's looking for the odds that all of them land.
you forgot the “how exciting😑” with absolutely no emotion whatsoever at the end lol
vision trying to play silent clubstep
Nah he did some editing thus no need to multiply each probability.
you also need to take into account how after every failed attempt he has to set back all the pins
now can u calculate the probability density function of the hours spent?
this one can only be aproximated unlike the one for number of atempts which is exactly P = 1/373248*e^-(1/373248*x)
assuming the plate mesurements were correct
Imma just believe it was done in one take and 100% happened
I think people are forgetting the power of editing
You forgot how he could also control the speed of his flick to bias the landing on the spinner
True only if you assume uniform random distribution for where the spinner ends each time. Which is probably never actually true, because the setup can be staged for significantly higher likelihood of success on the various targets.
Even assuming he did the video fairly ( without any camera tricks and other cheats) it would not be an even chance for each part of the wheel, as he would use some calculated amount of force for his spins, and he would probably get better at it with each spin.
The only difference is that all of this assumes any position of the pointer on the plate has an equal chance of being.
This seems to be assuming that success will only happen after all of the failed attempts. I think it would be clearer to say “after how many attempts would the probability of having had a success to be >50%. This number is 258,716 tries. 90% certainty would be after 859,434 tries.
Sticking with the 50% number, we can then use the probability of each failure state to do a weighted average on the failure times. This gives an average failure time of 2.312s
For the 50% probability, this gives 166.18 hours, and for the 90% probability it gives 552.04 hours
Of course, there’s an infinitesimally small probability that they’ll keep going for a year and still not get it. This would involve 13,637,810 attempts, and the probability that you’ve not got it in this many attempts is 1.4e-14%, or 0.000000000000014%
exciting to assemble this for 200+ hours? hail nah
Guess what.
If you make a bump in the plate where you want the spinner to land, you can increase the chance of the spinner landing there to a near 98% rate.
Ha ha, brilliant. Reminds me of the time I sat down and calculated how much a 40 foot container full of gold would cost.
Either that or it's edit each time he moves the camera from one plate to the other so you don't have the repetitions of generative fail-attempts, you would only have the primary fail-attempts to contend with. In other words, you would only have to keep trying to get the right area to start each plate. Each time the camera moves from plate to plate, there is plenty of blur and graininess to edit safely with.
he could also put in different amounts of effort to spin instead of just going random, so it probably took ~30-40 hours max
"Basically ten days of continuous filming without any sleep or anything, _how exciting_"
nobody gonna talk about the plate dude at the end that had to wait 239 hours just standing there wearing plastic plates
this is my new favourite channel
yeah but the force applied on the spinner is not random and he can control and learn how hard he needs to spin
What if there are little magnets under the plates?
I don't get why this is the expected time, isn't it the worst possible scenario? If so how to find the expected time? Like divide by the area of the distribution?
This is assuming he did it non-stop after each fail. Also it is luck based, he won't necessarily have to go through the certain max amount of time for each spin, they are just a maximum average. Also, it could be done on the first go with magnets. Also, this isn't taking account of how long he spent sticking all those plates to the other guy.
How the video was made: it was filmed in 2 spinner pairs. So he did 2 spinneres, there is a cut in the video, and a new video beginns for the next 2 spinners. You see that there is a longer gap to the next pair, so that the camera has a further travel distance that makes the jump cut less obvious.
Or he could've also learned how much force each spin takes to get the desired outcome at some point
totally understood, you earned my sub
now i want to see a physicist to confirm this
The fact that he said "that is a lot of secs" at 4:20 😂
Turn on captions and watch again
@@CalaTec broooo
This video exceeded my expectation value
he prolly edited the transition to make it seem one take, but yeah, still kinda cool
i hope he used magnets
If he didn't use magnets, then I can't even imagine the joy he felt when the last spin stopped on "turn around", and he did a great job to keep it hidden
It took bro a million attempts to say that with a straight face🫡👏🗿
10 Continious days of filming without sleep. "How Exciting"
-Andy Math
Skill
4:22 Where can I find Andy having those?
note that time, that's the max. he could've gotten in the first 24 seconds too.
I suspect there was some video editing involved.
wait until he finds out video cuts
that assumes he restarts the entire sequence if he gets a singular one wrong, the actual math would be- assuming a rate of 3.833 spinners per second - the summation of the reciprocal probabilities times the spinners per second so it would be 216.583 seconds or about 3 and half minutes. checkmate Andy Math and your throne of lies.
assuming he's very good at jump cuts
good video you just made a statistical error.
What if they put a magnet under the plate
bro timed that last part perfectly
What last part?
ok
"10 days of continuous filming without any sleep or anything.
How exciting."
Except for the fact this is completely wrong. You can choose how much force you use to spin and you can be pretty consistent.
What does congruent mean?
So an exact approach to the estimated time of recording is: 9 days, 23 hours, 45 minutes and 22 seconds?
He just hit the spinner if he got it he moved on if he didn't he retook the spin
Ten days straight?! That's so long: do you believe your result is roughly the amount of time it took?
Also, is there a way to calculate the probability distribution of the time taken?
[ Thank you, as always ]
The last sentence reminded me of Vsauce
@@JoseCuber2372 "And as always, thanks for watching."
@@fazom1707 Anorher fellow Vsauce watcher
@@JoseCuber2372 Yessir
Or am I? 🤨
@@fazom1707 When you watch Vsauce, he is always with you