Useless papers are precious and crucial and anyone less than a genius might have difficulty comprehending why. I'll try to explain anyways. In math class, you're told to show your work. You have to because the rationale for arriving at conclusion is quite nearly as important as the solution itself. So then in order to find proofs of contradiction and whatnot, you're going to have to "waste" some papers, by doing stuff which either "isn't allowed" or "is wittingly and intentionally incorrect," -just to "see what happens." So as yourself, are you going to publish all your scratch papers, even if they're totally useless? Those pages may even be useless to yourself, except in the sense they sense as waypoints to reminisce on your own thought processes which produced not only those pages, but the actually useful and published papers which resulted from those thought processes. They could be as redundantly redundant as this comment. It could be the equivelant of remembering his to ride a bike by looking at a bike and remembering that time you crashed and imaginatively replaying the scenario in a way that won't crash. The non crashing runs would be the papers that get published. The papers that crash stay on the shelf at home, because nobody is likely to make sense of them in the way with which they were produced. Food for thought!
@@jeffborders1146 interesting. The “problem” though is that not everyone can afford the “luxury” of publishing these useless papers for years before finally publishing THE work of his/her life. Unfortunately the math community is made of biased, imperfect, individuals. And as such , people are just not that patient… if you know what I mean
Please stay on topic or at least retitle the video. I don't think it was necessary to speak so much about the author's life (not directly related to his mathematical discovery at hand as hinted by the title) or how normal calculus works (with the riemann measure which people are already likely acquainted with). I would've preferred understanding _how_ measure theory was used to overcome higher dimensional issues rather than one example of such an issue, because without that the video fails in convincing me the author did the herculean task of reimagining the whole branch of probability. Regardless there was very nice animations and I look forward to more.
@@typo691 thank you so much for the honest feedback. So (if I understood correctly) you’d prefer to have less historical facts about Talagrand’s life and more in-depth math?
@@dibeos Yes. While his personal life is interesting and unique, it shouldn't be displayed at the cost of excluding the actual, probably groundbreaking, work he has done. Maybe a better flow of the video would have been a shorter introduction to his history, followed by a more in depth comparison of probability as a field before and after his work (->how it works, what were the previous approaches which his work substitutes, the consequences, how it helps prove other theorems, stuff like that), and finally concluding by showing his achievements and awards despite his setbacks.
@@bahibrahim101 I honestly have no idea… but considering many variables as dimensions and finding interesting patterns must be very useful for big data, for sure
@@dibeos talagrand’s inequality can help with high-dimensional data in AI by making sure most results stay close to expected outcomes. this could make optimization easier and models more stable, even with complexe data.
@dibeos Yeah, I studied a lot of ML alongside my software engineering schooling, but decided to pursue a career as a software engineer instead of going into ML engineering. Maybe I'll do a phd in it later on.
@jakeaustria5445 Here they are 😎 abelprize.no/sites/default/files/2024-03/glimpse_of_the_laureates_work_AbelPrize_2024.pdf michel.talagrand.net/longbio.pdf
the very scripted "student" interjecting every 3rd sentence for "clarification"(dropping more terminology in just as complex sentences) is just shit writing
Same! Every time I see it recommended, I get hyped because the topic is super interesting, but when they start playing out the “curios friend” scene, I have to close the video. It just rubs me the wrong way; the whole interaction feels disingenuous and non-relatable. I know it’s supposed to imitate how the viewer might have questions, but making it scripted defeats the purpose. It’s as if: - Did you know that 2+2=4? - Oh, I have now acquired new knowledge! Thank you, human friend. Does this also mean that the product of two binary quotient rings is isomorphic to the Klein group? - Yes, indeed. This is true. Like no people talk like this. That’s not how dialogues go. I feel the same level of cringe as from any video by @theslappablejerk
@@fullfungo thanks for the honest feedback. We really appreciate it. We will fix it in the channel. Please, give us “another shot” by watching our next videos and telling us if we really fixed the problem. Next Saturday we will post again.
@@dibeos I think posting as a duo is charming, especially in math where it's so rare. You guys don't need to make it a dialogue among yourselves, you can also simply narrate paragraphs of the script alternately.
@@typo691 you are right, really, we were already having some talks about it and how we were already getting uncomfortable with the format. It is also a little distracting from the topic. Unfortunately we already made the next video (I just remembered) about Lucky Numbers in Number theory for the next Saturday, in this format :/ but we will definitely change it to just both of us presenting the topic while “talking” to the camera
![Yeat & Summrs - GO2WORK [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NEFEwfPcXRA/mqdefault.jpg)
Useless papers are precious and crucial and anyone less than a genius might have difficulty comprehending why. I'll try to explain anyways. In math class, you're told to show your work. You have to because the rationale for arriving at conclusion is quite nearly as important as the solution itself. So then in order to find proofs of contradiction and whatnot, you're going to have to "waste" some papers, by doing stuff which either "isn't allowed" or "is wittingly and intentionally incorrect," -just to "see what happens." So as yourself, are you going to publish all your scratch papers, even if they're totally useless? Those pages may even be useless to yourself, except in the sense they sense as waypoints to reminisce on your own thought processes which produced not only those pages, but the actually useful and published papers which resulted from those thought processes. They could be as redundantly redundant as this comment. It could be the equivelant of remembering his to ride a bike by looking at a bike and remembering that time you crashed and imaginatively replaying the scenario in a way that won't crash. The non crashing runs would be the papers that get published. The papers that crash stay on the shelf at home, because nobody is likely to make sense of them in the way with which they were produced. Food for thought!
@@jeffborders1146 interesting. The “problem” though is that not everyone can afford the “luxury” of publishing these useless papers for years before finally publishing THE work of his/her life. Unfortunately the math community is made of biased, imperfect, individuals. And as such , people are just not that patient… if you know what I mean
"They could be as redundantly redundant as this comment". More precisely this precise comment
@@redaabakhti768 I precisely agree with the precision of this comment
6:57 for anyone curious it's just √n - 1 so when n=3 you get root 3 minus 1
Please stay on topic or at least retitle the video. I don't think it was necessary to speak so much about the author's life (not directly related to his mathematical discovery at hand as hinted by the title) or how normal calculus works (with the riemann measure which people are already likely acquainted with). I would've preferred understanding _how_ measure theory was used to overcome higher dimensional issues rather than one example of such an issue, because without that the video fails in convincing me the author did the herculean task of reimagining the whole branch of probability. Regardless there was very nice animations and I look forward to more.
@@typo691 thank you so much for the honest feedback. So (if I understood correctly) you’d prefer to have less historical facts about Talagrand’s life and more in-depth math?
@@dibeos Yes. While his personal life is interesting and unique, it shouldn't be displayed at the cost of excluding the actual, probably groundbreaking, work he has done. Maybe a better flow of the video would have been a shorter introduction to his history, followed by a more in depth comparison of probability as a field before and after his work (->how it works, what were the previous approaches which his work substitutes, the consequences, how it helps prove other theorems, stuff like that), and finally concluding by showing his achievements and awards despite his setbacks.
@@typo691 got it!! Next time we will make the “historical thing” just as a short intro. Thanks, really!!! 😉
Great video!)
I wonder how will this impact Machine Learning and AI
@@bahibrahim101 I honestly have no idea… but considering many variables as dimensions and finding interesting patterns must be very useful for big data, for sure
@@dibeos talagrand’s inequality can help with high-dimensional data in AI by making sure most results stay close to expected outcomes. this could make optimization easier and models more stable, even with complexe data.
@@dibeos which means it will mitigate the curse of dimensionality to some degree
@@bahibrahim101 that’s so cool!!! How do you know that? Do you study or work with AI?
@dibeos Yeah, I studied a lot of ML alongside my software engineering schooling, but decided to pursue a career as a software engineer instead of going into ML engineering. Maybe I'll do a phd in it later on.
perfect thank you for quality
thank you!!! please tell us what kind of content you’d like to see in the channel. maybe some explanations that you never really understood…
@@dibeos i want to watch video about the law in statitics Bizzard think like Benford like Zipf law .....
good video, you have earned yourself another subscriber 💪
@@jedediahjehoshaphat thanks Jedediah 😎
Thank you
@@jakeaustria5445 you’re welcome 😎
Do you have a link for the paper?
@jakeaustria5445 Here they are 😎
abelprize.no/sites/default/files/2024-03/glimpse_of_the_laureates_work_AbelPrize_2024.pdf
michel.talagrand.net/longbio.pdf
prob💀
@@Fire_Axus prob 😎
the very scripted "student" interjecting every 3rd sentence for "clarification"(dropping more terminology in just as complex sentences) is just shit writing
i’m sorry you didn’t like… can you give us a more concrete example and tips on how to fix it for the next videos? thanks for the comment anyway!
Same!
Every time I see it recommended, I get hyped because the topic is super interesting, but when they start playing out the “curios friend” scene, I have to close the video.
It just rubs me the wrong way; the whole interaction feels disingenuous and non-relatable.
I know it’s supposed to imitate how the viewer might have questions, but making it scripted defeats the purpose.
It’s as if:
- Did you know that 2+2=4?
- Oh, I have now acquired new knowledge! Thank you, human friend. Does this also mean that the product of two binary quotient rings is isomorphic to the Klein group?
- Yes, indeed. This is true.
Like no people talk like this. That’s not how dialogues go.
I feel the same level of cringe as from any video by @theslappablejerk
@@fullfungo thanks for the honest feedback. We really appreciate it. We will fix it in the channel. Please, give us “another shot” by watching our next videos and telling us if we really fixed the problem. Next Saturday we will post again.
@@dibeos I think posting as a duo is charming, especially in math where it's so rare. You guys don't need to make it a dialogue among yourselves, you can also simply narrate paragraphs of the script alternately.
@@typo691 you are right, really, we were already having some talks about it and how we were already getting uncomfortable with the format. It is also a little distracting from the topic. Unfortunately we already made the next video (I just remembered) about Lucky Numbers in Number theory for the next Saturday, in this format :/ but we will definitely change it to just both of us presenting the topic while “talking” to the camera