The Feigenbaum Constant (4.669) - Numberphile

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 15 янв 2017
  • Binge on learning at The Great Courses Plus: ow.ly/Z5yR307LfxY
    The Feigenbaum Constant and Logistic Map - featuring Ben Sparks.
    Catch a more in-depth interview with Ben on our Numberphile Podcast: • The Happy Twin (with B...
    Ben Sparks: / sparksmaths
    Random numbers: • Random Numbers - Numbe...
    Mandelbrot Set: • The Mandelbrot Set - N...
    Logistic Map graph: www.geogebra.org/m/wQbHRgye
    Watch Ben build (from scratch) the Bifurcation Geogebra visualisation file he uses, on his channel here: • Bifurcation Diagram Li...
    Numberphile is supported by the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI): bit.ly/MSRINumberphile
    We are also supported by Science Sandbox, a Simons Foundation initiative dedicated to engaging everyone with the process of science.
    NUMBERPHILE
    Website: www.numberphile.com/
    Numberphile on Facebook: / numberphile
    Numberphile tweets: / numberphile
    Subscribe: bit.ly/Numberphile_Sub
    Videos by Brady Haran
    Patreon: / numberphile
    Brady's videos subreddit: / bradyharan
    Brady's latest videos across all channels: www.bradyharanblog.com/
    Sign up for (occasional) emails: eepurl.com/YdjL9
  • НаукаНаука

Комментарии • 1,8 тыс.

  • @numberphile
    @numberphile  3 года назад +96

    Catch a more in-depth interview with Ben on our Numberphile Podcast: ruclips.net/video/-tGni9ObJWk/видео.html

    • @vinster9165
      @vinster9165 3 года назад

      Numberphile what would happen to the human population if they bred at this rate

    • @123coffeeshop
      @123coffeeshop 3 года назад

      yo @veritasium plagiarized your video!

  • @Vodboi
    @Vodboi 7 лет назад +1144

    16:08 "Actually, this is the mandelbrot set" Greatest plot twist of all time

    • @travisbrown6814
      @travisbrown6814 4 года назад +45

      Veritassium has a great video on this

    • @galatei11
      @galatei11 4 года назад +62

      Not exactly, it's the Z axis of the mandelbrot set, the axis most people never look at.

    • @SmartWarthog
      @SmartWarthog 4 года назад +16

      Top 10 Anime Plot Twists

    • @Its2for1
      @Its2for1 4 года назад

      Your comment made me laugh so hard IDK why. Well done :)

    • @zixuan1630
      @zixuan1630 3 года назад

      @@travisbrown6814 Two Ts. Which T am T going to T understandT?

  • @weerman44
    @weerman44 7 лет назад +2537

    3:05 "I'm not gonna read them out anymore"
    *Reads them out*

    • @isabellabornberg2153
      @isabellabornberg2153 7 лет назад

      weerman44 +

    • @Simpson17866
      @Simpson17866 7 лет назад +155

      He's unpredictable ;)

    • @luisdiegocr
      @luisdiegocr 7 лет назад +24

      take it easy, you millennial.....

    • @fizixx
      @fizixx 7 лет назад +1

      Random whining? No, I have a feeling he wets himself on a regular basis.

    • @weerman44
      @weerman44 7 лет назад +11

      fizixx Lol, it was just for fun ;)

  • @fen4554
    @fen4554 7 лет назад +1339

    This kind of stuff gives me the same goosebumps as when I discovered the pattern in my 9 times table twenty years ago.

    • @numberphile
      @numberphile  7 лет назад +217

      +Friendly Metroid ha ha - nice

    • @CraftQueenJr
      @CraftQueenJr 6 лет назад +24

      Friendly Metroid what? You mean that up through 20 all multiples of nine add to 9?

    • @lawrencedoliveiro9104
      @lawrencedoliveiro9104 6 лет назад +153

      You mean the way the digits add up to 9?
      Imagine a planet where they use hexadecimal, and some little alien child discovers a similar pattern in their F-times table.
      Yes, maths is universal in that way.

    • @maxonmendel5757
      @maxonmendel5757 5 лет назад +51

      Lol I thought you meant you found THIS pattern in your times table. I was very confused.

    • @maxonmendel5757
      @maxonmendel5757 5 лет назад +3

      Lawrence D’Oliveiro hmmmm. Does it work in binary. Hmmmmmmm

  • @MagnusSkiptonLLC
    @MagnusSkiptonLLC 7 лет назад +767

    17:09 Oh yeah, what if I write:
    public static int Uhhh() {
    return 7;
    }

    • @MagnusSkiptonLLC
      @MagnusSkiptonLLC 6 лет назад +175

      I was about to say, heh I had the same thought, then I realized that you are me from the past. :/
      BTW, we know some Javascript now, so now we can just write:
      function Uhhh() {
      return 7;
      }

    • @JamalAhmadMalik
      @JamalAhmadMalik 5 лет назад +19

      @@MagnusSkiptonLLC You made my day ;)

    • @MagnusSkiptonLLC
      @MagnusSkiptonLLC 5 лет назад +71

      @Michael Steshenko Sadly, I have not learned any new programming languages since then...
      Maybe I could just do SQL:
      SELECT 7 FROM dbo.Uhhh
      But wait that would return one 7 per row in the table...
      SELECT DISTINCT 7 FROM dbo.Uhhh
      There we go :3

    • @elirockenbeck6922
      @elirockenbeck6922 5 лет назад +10

      @@MagnusSkiptonLLC I've been following since 2017, and you're telling me I have to wait another 10 months?

    • @MagnusSkiptonLLC
      @MagnusSkiptonLLC 5 лет назад +15

      @@elirockenbeck6922 I'd write it in VB (the first programming language I learned) but it would make my hands feel sticky.

  • @ElektrykFlaaj
    @ElektrykFlaaj 7 лет назад +431

    this were the shortest fckin 18 minutes in my life
    That's awesome

    • @marlenedietrich2468
      @marlenedietrich2468 5 лет назад +15

      I saw your comment and was like there's no way that was 18 minutes, crazy

    • @robin9740
      @robin9740 5 лет назад +2

      If you think this is interesting I suggest you look into difference equations and their stability.

    • @SlashCrash_Studios
      @SlashCrash_Studios 4 года назад +5

      Welcome to Numberphile

  • @faastex
    @faastex 7 лет назад +849

    I think this is the most amazing mathematical thing I've ever seen

    • @UstedTubo187
      @UstedTubo187 7 лет назад +8

      That's because the idiot in the video did such a horrible job of explaining it. Definitely try to find the follow-up video to that because the other guy does a MUCH better job of explaining the result.

    • @hanniffydinn6019
      @hanniffydinn6019 7 лет назад +2

      Maruf Can Karatekin it makes sense because numbers are higher dimensional objects... -1/12 is like the first page on any book on string theory.... Reality is like 12 dimensions...

    • @uuu12343
      @uuu12343 7 лет назад +28

      UstedTubo187
      Dude
      Said idiot has a ph.d and that number is shown in the book that every science students use
      Also
      He just used algebra laws to prove it, pretty sure that's not idiotic

    • @tabaks
      @tabaks 7 лет назад +28

      UstedTubo187 the education and class ooze out of your comment like a putrid, liquefied innards of a rat mauled by a car wheel which just a second ago ran through a steaming, writhing maggot infested cow dung.

    • @UstedTubo187
      @UstedTubo187 7 лет назад +7

      You're right, he did put in the hard work to become a PhD. I should've called him Dr. Idiot.

  • @kcwidman
    @kcwidman 7 лет назад +504

    Something I have realized about numberphile is that the videos that have a title with a number in it are always really good.

    • @remixener22
      @remixener22 6 лет назад +13

      never would have guessed

    • @The_Feedy
      @The_Feedy 6 лет назад +56

      I guess you can always count on them ;)

    • @SkillTimO
      @SkillTimO 5 лет назад +13

      Is there a constant that relates the number in the title to the number of likes that video has? That's Widman's constant.

    • @maxonmendel5757
      @maxonmendel5757 5 лет назад +3

      Tim Owen might have to map that... 🗺

    • @SkillTimO
      @SkillTimO 5 лет назад +2

      @@maxonmendel5757 No point mate. It's clearer in my mind than it will ever be on paper.

  • @pugazharasuad
    @pugazharasuad 4 года назад +2109

    Who's here after Veritasium's video?

  • @AppliedScience
    @AppliedScience 7 лет назад +721

    Wow! This is one of my favorite episodes. So cool!

    • @earthbjornnahkaimurrao9542
      @earthbjornnahkaimurrao9542 6 лет назад +1

      Applied Science - i was just about to type this exact comment.

    • @acetate909
      @acetate909 5 лет назад +3

      Applied science, one of my favorites as well. Also, I'm a post graduate engineering student. I'm about to check out your channel.

    • @777redhood
      @777redhood 5 лет назад

      Watch chaos game by numberphile

  • @Joeobrown1
    @Joeobrown1 7 лет назад +188

    this guy's a pretty good presenter

  • @pa20065
    @pa20065 Год назад +17

    A complex subject explained in an understandable manner without losing any of its fascination. On the contrary, the radiance in his eyes and the intonation in his voice create the impression that he is speaking about something divine and awe-inspiring that he has just witnessed, commanding reverence and respect.

  • @EmilMacko
    @EmilMacko 7 лет назад +687

    Eventually, in the future when we have discovered every single one of these important constants, we can add them all together and find that the answer is 42

    • @MrEfinel
      @MrEfinel 4 года назад +19

      Or... 23

    • @eternalkino34
      @eternalkino34 3 года назад +1

      😂😂😂😂😂😂

    • @Gold161803
      @Gold161803 3 года назад +21

      If you're including i, that already ain't happening

    • @Gold161803
      @Gold161803 3 года назад +24

      @TurboCMinusMinus might as well define the last important constant to be 42-x, where x is the sum of all the others
      (just messing with you, for the record)

    • @bontempo1271
      @bontempo1271 3 года назад

      i reckon all the occult knoledge already has answers regarding this. And they've probably been steering humans how they want.

  • @tzokke
    @tzokke 7 лет назад +176

    "We are going to use rabbits because... well... they breed like rabbits"
    Nailed it!

  • @olivierdutreuilh6535
    @olivierdutreuilh6535 7 лет назад +372

    Absolutely beautiful video ! Thank you very much !

    • @numberphile
      @numberphile  7 лет назад +53

      +Olivier Dutreuilh cheers for watching

    • @isabellabornberg2153
      @isabellabornberg2153 7 лет назад +1

      Olivier Dutreuilh +

    • @sjcwoor
      @sjcwoor 7 лет назад +2

      Here's a question... At what value of lambda does the average life of
      rabbits become irrelevant due to the life period being less than that of
      a Planck time?

    • @tabaks
      @tabaks 7 лет назад +2

      Brucifer 42.

    • @NuisanceMan
      @NuisanceMan 7 лет назад +12

      More interestingly...at what value of lambda does the duration between rabbits screwing become less than the Planck time? I propose calling this "the Hareporn Limit."

  • @antivanti
    @antivanti 7 лет назад +96

    As soon as I saw the function I got excited. I absolutely love the graph at the end. It's like the hipster version of the Mandelbrot set. It's equally nerdily beautiful but much less known :P

    • @numberphile
      @numberphile  7 лет назад +15

      Glad you liked it!

    • @twiedenfeld
      @twiedenfeld 7 лет назад +3

      It's not a function though, technically speaking. Which makes me wonder, why do we spend so much time teaching kids what functions are?

    • @Tupster
      @Tupster 7 лет назад +6

      it is a function if you consider f(λ) to give the sequence of answers (a single thing) and this is just a particular visualization of it.

    • @kennethsizer6217
      @kennethsizer6217 7 лет назад +7

      It is tidy and logical. But you're not thinking fourth-dimensionally, Marty!

    • @sashimanu
      @sashimanu 5 лет назад

      And, being hipster, it's actually a dumbed down version of the bigger thing

  • @kokopelli314
    @kokopelli314 7 лет назад +8

    Yeah!!!
    I remember re-discovering this constant in the 1980's on my commodore 64, playing around with iteratied logistic maps. At the time i had no notion of Feigenbaums work. Thanks for presenting this wonderful topic!

  • @owenwilliams6306
    @owenwilliams6306 7 лет назад +483

    title doesn't really make sense

    • @owenwilliams6306
      @owenwilliams6306 7 лет назад +48

      is and 4.669 are the wrong way round

    • @aleksganev
      @aleksganev 7 лет назад +10

      you don't make sense

    • @owenwilliams6306
      @owenwilliams6306 7 лет назад +11

      Just letting them know jeeez

    • @aleksganev
      @aleksganev 7 лет назад +6

      nope.. it's right both ways

    • @owenwilliams6306
      @owenwilliams6306 7 лет назад +28

      No it isn't it sounds wrong with the question mark at the end

  • @unvergebeneid
    @unvergebeneid 7 лет назад +174

    Interestingly, this _discrete_ logistic equation only models populations of animals that have a mating season. For other animals, including humans, the continuous logistic function is used and it's really boring in that it just converges and shows neither bifurcations nor chaos.

    • @tratbagd4500
      @tratbagd4500 5 лет назад +2

      @@prassel6189 Agreed.

    • @johntate6537
      @johntate6537 4 года назад +10

      Yes, for continuous functions I think you need at least three different functions interacting in order to produce chaos, like the Lorentz attractor for example.

    • @donhill3915
      @donhill3915 4 года назад +11

      I am not a mathematician but trying to reduce this to something of meaning. I understand that this has been applied to other things than breeding animals. So, the equation is a model. The accuracy of the model, that is the equation, to reflect reality is probably key to any meaning. And a source of error in interpretation.
      So in this model randomness increases but not randomly but actually at a fixed constant rate. And chaos eventually creates the non chaotic state - at a regular but increasing rate which falls apart. I was trying to understand this in terms of creation of order by accident. I guess that the equation predicts that something pre-exists but that order can evolve from chaos. For a spell. I was thinking of GUT theory of the Universe.
      Would it not be true to say a number set, chaotic or ordered, cannot exist unless the model, the reality, the equation must exist first? Is there any mathematical way to support the Universe as an accidental appearance of order? Without a pre-existing mathematical equation or model?
      I think this proves the possibility of order without design but of course leaves both options. But i think the subject speaks against creation without a previous ordered equation.

    • @hachat1
      @hachat1 4 года назад +2

      Introduce foxes.(i.e. predators, so known as predator pray model) :D you get bifurcations.

    • @mykalkelley8315
      @mykalkelley8315 4 года назад +2

      Because its humanitys destiny to overcome chaos (warhammer 40k reference)

  • @NickC_222
    @NickC_222 7 лет назад +10

    I just love how the graph quickly became a fractal. Fractals are the best.

  • @andrew_owens7680
    @andrew_owens7680 7 лет назад +13

    This is mind-blowing! I remember when I first heard about chaos theory back in the 1990s. I told my boss it was one of the most important things I'd ever heard about. I'm not a mathematician, but I still intuit that is true.

  • @hd_inmemoriam
    @hd_inmemoriam 7 лет назад +179

    For those who stopped watching when the sponsor message plays: Fan service starts at 18:37 ...

  • @lagduck2209
    @lagduck2209 7 лет назад +145

    Wow. Just Wow. That's really like best video ever about logistic functions and its connetion to mandelbrot's set. I am just proud of you.

    • @lagduck2209
      @lagduck2209 7 лет назад +27

      Please do more videos about fractals/recursive/infinite things!

    • @lagduck2209
      @lagduck2209 7 лет назад +16

      btw, sandpiles video was also great

    • @maxonmendel5757
      @maxonmendel5757 5 лет назад +1

      What I liked was that I wasn’t *sure* it was about the Mandelbrot set until they mentioned it. They could’ve had a complete video without mentioning it. It shows how universal an idea can be.

    • @omnathbhandari3434
      @omnathbhandari3434 3 года назад

      @@maxonmendel5757 I

  • @DukeLaCrosse20
    @DukeLaCrosse20 7 лет назад +5

    Wow, Ben Sparks is excellent at explaining things. He keeps it simple and ramps up the comprehension difficulty slowly/smoothly and just draws you in. I watched the whole 18 minutes with rapt attention even though I felt like I could have dropped out at any time and still have learned something interesting. Bravo!

  • @shakesmctremens178
    @shakesmctremens178 7 лет назад +15

    5:11 Brady doing a fair imitation of Elmer Fudd singing Wagner
    I killed da wabbits..

  • @TheDeadOfNight37
    @TheDeadOfNight37 7 лет назад +255

    is it because it has 69 in it?

    • @Ayplus
      @Ayplus 7 лет назад +2

      Because theres 69 in the end :)

    • @jwhite973
      @jwhite973 7 лет назад +1

      A. Rashad
      69's not the end 😉

    • @RDSk0
      @RDSk0 7 лет назад +19

      69 is just the beginning :>

    • @MyYTwatcher
      @MyYTwatcher 7 лет назад

      I see what you did there :D

    • @CM_Burns
      @CM_Burns 7 лет назад +3

      does it have a creamy ending?

  • @sugarfrosted2005
    @sugarfrosted2005 7 лет назад +42

    Finally a person who realizes the truth about Casio Supremacy.

  • @SomethingUnreal
    @SomethingUnreal 7 лет назад +1

    I'm so glad you made the video this length and didn't split it into several parts. Ben does a great job of explaining it and it feels like we get to go on the journey from its first discovery, to uncovering its strange properties, to seeing how they're used at the end. So many unexpected things happen here that I think splitting the video would've made them feel unrelated.

  • @alexhenderson3364
    @alexhenderson3364 7 лет назад +2

    The number of times concepts and visuals I've known casually have been linked together by a Numberphile video is Huge, but this video beat them all. I've heard of this constant before, but didn't know it was not only related to population maps, but Every Single quadratic map... Then hearing that the map shown produces a one-dimensional analogue to the Mandelbrot set? That's crazy.
    Keep on enriching my life, Numberphile!

  • @DeJayHank
    @DeJayHank 7 лет назад +5

    I love it. I remember vaguely when I first heard about fractals and the weird unpredictable behaviour they can produce, but this gave the same feeling all over again. The crazy simplicity of it and the infinite chaos it breeds is just awe-some. The extra pieces of sudden order in the middle of it just adds to the mystery. Great stuff. Very good video

  • @eltonbergruh8339
    @eltonbergruh8339 7 лет назад +3

    This might be one of my favourite numberphile videos in the last year or so. Great subject, well explained, some mystery and a charismatic host. Thanks!

  • @Kalobi
    @Kalobi 7 лет назад +2

    I love that two people working on fractals at the same time are called Feigenbaum and Mandelbrot, which are German for "fig tree" and "almond bread".

  • @jmcbresilfr
    @jmcbresilfr 7 лет назад +1

    That was an awesome video! Your channel is not getting old, keep up the good work!

  • @Wargon2013
    @Wargon2013 7 лет назад +5

    I was about to write "I think Fractals have something to do with this"
    Then he said it actually IS the Mandelbrot set.
    Awesome video!

  • @BrotherAlpha
    @BrotherAlpha 7 лет назад +279

    The fact that so much math links up like that shows that math isn't something we humans made up. It is something that is innate to the universe and we are just discovering it.

    • @ldskjfhslkjdhflkjdhf
      @ldskjfhslkjdhflkjdhf 7 лет назад +50

      BrotherAlpha Or it could just show commonalities in mathematical reasoning. But if you need to make math seem "mystical" for it to be meaningful to you that's cool too.

    • @KaitouKaiju
      @KaitouKaiju 7 лет назад +52

      He's not presenting it as mystical. Quite the opposite. He's just saying it's inherent in the way things work. Math is the most mundane thing there is.

    • @nosuchthing8
      @nosuchthing8 7 лет назад +18

      BrotherAlpha or we are living in a sim created by lazy developers. just kidding.

    • @Kabitu1
      @Kabitu1 7 лет назад +31

      All of math is just different expressions of the same 9 axioms, of course you're gonna see similar structures pop up in places you thought to be different. Because you've invented two different views of a particular set of conclusions, and called them two "branches" of mathematics (like geometry and topology, investigating two different aspects of forms), that doesn't mean there's an actual divide between them. It only makes sense that different conclusions will turn out to be versions of the same idea under different perspectives, it all comes from the same place.

    • @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself
      @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself 7 лет назад +11

      BrotherAlpha , we humans made up notation and techniques for manipulating those symbols that represent quantities and relations between quantities, but of course, those quantities and relations already exist out in the world independent of us.

  • @lpsp442
    @lpsp442 7 лет назад +2

    Those are truly the best calculators. Introduced to them in high school around 2005, and I've never needed another model.

  • @HalcyonSerenade
    @HalcyonSerenade 6 лет назад +113

    "So what do you like to do in your free time?"
    "I watch a lot of RUclips..."
    "Ha ha, like funny Vines and memes, right?"
    "... videos about math."

    • @kbruh3057
      @kbruh3057 3 года назад +1

      @Pybro Ambiguous 😊

  • @n0lain
    @n0lain 7 лет назад +312

    Can you make a video about why Lamda can't be >4?

    • @animowany111
      @animowany111 7 лет назад +60

      Because it grows exponentially at that point

    • @nikoyochum6974
      @nikoyochum6974 7 лет назад +106

      I believe it is just because it pushes into negatives, and you can't have a negative population

    • @boghag
      @boghag 7 лет назад +114

      It's because the starting value of 0.5 would give you a population of > 1 in the following year, and we want the population to be between 0 and 1. If you make Lambda even bigger, even more values would surpass 1 the following year.

    • @isabellabornberg2153
      @isabellabornberg2153 7 лет назад +2

      spaghetti +

    • @niallegan4073
      @niallegan4073 7 лет назад +145

      By completing the square, you can quickly see that the value of x that gives the maximum for x(1-x) is x = 1/2 - thus the maximum for this quadratic is 1/4. We have to make sure that lambda * x * (1-x)

  • @NoahTopper
    @NoahTopper 7 лет назад +244

    Ah yes, 4.669. Almost as famous as Scott of the Antarctic.

    • @Kire1120
      @Kire1120 7 лет назад +3

      Noah Topper It's been 22 days I am dying for a new episode

    • @chillbro1010
      @chillbro1010 7 лет назад +25

      Almost as famous as the Parker Square

    • @mpperfidy
      @mpperfidy 7 лет назад +2

      (@Connor Hill) I find it mildly sad that in the (as of right now) 7 hours since this comment was made, it's only been thumbed-up 10 times, including mine.

    • @thatoneguy9582
      @thatoneguy9582 7 лет назад +1

      mpperfidy 13 hours later, 69 likes

    • @mpperfidy
      @mpperfidy 7 лет назад +4

      Sorry, I was referring to Connor Hill's "Almost as famous as the Parker Square" which is still grotesquely unloved, compared to what it deserves.

  • @dAvrilthebear
    @dAvrilthebear 7 лет назад +2

    Thank you so much, I've heard about this formula some years ago, but did not remember it and did not quite understand it. Now everything is explained beautifully!
    Numberphile, you never fail to find something new and exciting to find out in math! :)
    And we all would like to hear more from today's professor.

  • @swampedg0d
    @swampedg0d 7 лет назад +2

    I'm not mathematically savvy at all, but I'm fascinated by the reality that numbers are a universal constant. Your videos are excellent, i enjoy them immensely. Keep it up please

  • @gigglysamentz2021
    @gigglysamentz2021 7 лет назад +4

    6:55 It's hilarious how excited he is at the idea of showing us a graph XD

  • @Griemz
    @Griemz 3 года назад +3

    The best feeling I get is when i discover stuff like this in mathematics or physics or whatever subject from the internet. I feel like i'm witnessing the universe on a deeper level, but then I get super sad when reality hits me: I realize I am just an electrician, never learned any maths or physics beyond the basics and thus won't ever properly understand any of it, let alone explore it on my own.
    But I feel like it's somehow worth to try to understand it at least, it makes me happy for some reason :D

    • @therunetruekinght
      @therunetruekinght Год назад

      sometimes art won't be understood, but it can still be appreciated

  • @theaddies
    @theaddies 6 лет назад +2

    Ben Sparks is simply fantastic. Top notch.

  • @SomeoneCommenting
    @SomeoneCommenting 7 лет назад

    I love the plots that come out of this thing. Really interesting.

  • @ChannelEmrakul
    @ChannelEmrakul 7 лет назад +9

    As a Math/CS major, I really loved that ending! Great to see how everything is connected!

  • @Memington
    @Memington 7 лет назад +57

    Is there a way to show how that graph is the mandelbrot set?

    • @tunateun
      @tunateun 7 лет назад +99

      Memington upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Verhulst-Mandelbrot-Bifurcation.jpg

    • @Memington
      @Memington 7 лет назад +10

      Wow! Very cool.

    • @robinsparrow1618
      @robinsparrow1618 7 лет назад +19

      Why did this make me tear up?

    • @MichaelFoleyPhotography
      @MichaelFoleyPhotography 7 лет назад +8

      I always hated math in school, was terrible at it, but that gif absolutely blew me away. Amazing.

    • @camilofebres8417
      @camilofebres8417 6 лет назад +1

      jordan fink Thank you. Amazing link.

  • @Ax1007
    @Ax1007 7 лет назад

    This is legitimately the most interesting and fascinating mathematical thing I have ever seen.

  • @picknikbasket
    @picknikbasket 7 лет назад

    Again the best is held till the last, well done Brady this is epic storytelling.

  • @Robi2009
    @Robi2009 7 лет назад +9

    6:00 - Am I the only one who thought:
    - Duck season!
    - Rabbit season!
    - Duck season! etc. :)

    • @RDSk0
      @RDSk0 7 лет назад +4

      Elmer Season!

  • @MrMakae90
    @MrMakae90 7 лет назад +55

    This escalated quickly.

  • @EeroSoralahti
    @EeroSoralahti 7 лет назад +1

    Excellent video! Possibly the best video on this channel yet!

  • @margarett.newman7574
    @margarett.newman7574 3 года назад

    I have been away from formal work in mathematics and am grateful to know we use the nomenclature ‘pseudo random numbers’. Thanks!

  • @Lazauya
    @Lazauya 7 лет назад +3

    CHAOS THEORY! I've been waiting for a video on this for so long, thanks so much!

  • @HarukiMiyazawi
    @HarukiMiyazawi 7 лет назад +17

    I like the videos about mathematical constants.

  • @tracyhouser3138
    @tracyhouser3138 6 лет назад +1

    So fascinating. You're fostering my new found love for maths. Thank you guys so much for sharing your passions.

  • @pythagorasaurusrex9853
    @pythagorasaurusrex9853 7 лет назад

    WOW! The first time I heard about this Feigenbaum fractal was in the mid 80es together with the Mandelbrot set. But I had no idea that both are connected. Great video. Thx!

  • @AapoJoki
    @AapoJoki 7 лет назад +22

    I think it's famous because Numberphile did a video on it.

    • @iminni3459
      @iminni3459 7 лет назад +8

      Aapo like the the Parker square 😝

  • @joebykaeby
    @joebykaeby 7 лет назад +21

    Is there a reason that the bifurcations aren't symmetrical? At 15:10 for example the bottom fork diverges by a much larger amount than the top. Is that some integral part of the function or just controlled randomness?
    ALSO THERE"S A LIL PUPPY OMG I LOVE PUPPY
    Ok I'm done

    • @xaytana
      @xaytana 7 лет назад +6

      Around 8:06 where he first shows a repeating set of four numbers, there's .50, .87, .38, and .82; and what you see on the graph are those four numbers presented along the y-axis numerically.

    • @omikronweapon
      @omikronweapon 5 лет назад +3

      what does "controlled randomness" mean?
      It IS symmetrical in a way. the higher the previous fork was, the larger the difference between the offshoots is.

  • @thomassynths
    @thomassynths 7 лет назад

    The BEST numberphile video in quite a while. Loved it.

  • @normILL
    @normILL 7 лет назад

    This is why I watch numberphile. Thank you for making this. Fascinating stuff.

  • @althaz
    @althaz 7 лет назад +3

    Great video. One of my favourite Numberphile videos for ages :). Thanks!

    • @numberphile
      @numberphile  7 лет назад

      +Justin Murtagh glad you liked it

  • @willk7184
    @willk7184 4 года назад +5

    Really interesting, great episode.

  • @dustinsc2023
    @dustinsc2023 7 лет назад +1

    This guy explained it so clearly and concisely, awesome video

  • @harmony.enforcer
    @harmony.enforcer 7 лет назад +1

    This is AMAZING to see. I can't believe how well that equation describes population and biology

  • @heliocentric1756
    @heliocentric1756 7 лет назад +5

    Thank you ! I learned something new here.

  • @jamesblackburn8110
    @jamesblackburn8110 7 лет назад +6

    "It doesn't have an 'uhhhh' function." --I like that explanation.

  • @nafi4932
    @nafi4932 6 лет назад

    Saw a talk by this man about the origin of numbers; I never knew he did a Numberphile video! Would recommend going to see the talk it if you have the chance.

  • @GinoTheSinner
    @GinoTheSinner 7 лет назад

    Thanks for this, one of the best brideos in a long time. I would also love to see you guys in casual settings + drugs.

  • @bsul03420
    @bsul03420 4 года назад +3

    7:29 "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it!"

  • @JBLewis
    @JBLewis 7 лет назад +18

    After reading "Chaos" by James Gleick, when I was in 8th or 9th grade, I wrote an Atari Basic program to demonstrate / illustrate the bifurcating results of that very equation!

    • @daicon2k6
      @daicon2k6 7 лет назад +5

      JB Lewis I did the same thing, only on an Apple ][+.

    • @yahccs1
      @yahccs1 2 года назад

      8th or 9th grade? I found it hard going to read that after 2nd year at university! I would have loved to learn some basic programming when I was at school and was a little jealous of some boys in my maths class having programmable calculators, and impressed by one who wrote a computer program to investigate a number series and came with a very long printout with a list of numbers! I did get a programmable calculator eventually - I think it was in my first year at uni. I still write visual basic programs on it now but can do most maths I want to do using formulas and graphs on Excel. Windows doesn't let you write programs. At uni I got to learn a bit of Pascal programming first... then Fortran... then C+ or C++. I've forgotten those languages now. Still know a bit of html for making basic Webpages. Visual basic on the calculator is enough for the little bits of maths I want to do that needs a bit of programming (and Excel of course!)

  • @athul1193
    @athul1193 7 лет назад

    Oh my ! This is profound and spectacular ! I have been trying this out on matlab and its wonderful ! Thanks guys !

  • @fractalspace1111
    @fractalspace1111 6 лет назад

    Mind absolutely blown. So many questions.

  • @DaBoff99
    @DaBoff99 7 лет назад +4

    Robert May's BBC Radio 4 Life Scientific interview remains one of my favourites. He went on to model HIV for the UN

  • @genrole
    @genrole 7 лет назад +6

    "Let's go with rabbits, cause they breed like a-uhh"
    WHAT? SAY IT!

  • @imnotnia
    @imnotnia 7 лет назад

    This is my favorite Numberphile video so far.

  • @martixbg
    @martixbg 7 лет назад

    Sometimes there are these lulls in content, but right now numberphile is on a ROLL. This was amazing.

  • @crazydrummer4827
    @crazydrummer4827 7 лет назад +3

    Unique feeling. New Numberphile video :D

  • @TheTCKreen
    @TheTCKreen 7 лет назад +1

    Wow. I didn't think I'd be so enthralled by 4.669 - thanks Brady&co! :D

  • @CoBoL09
    @CoBoL09 7 лет назад

    last 2 videos have been brilliant. fascinating stuff!

    • @thej3799
      @thej3799 Год назад

      I made a bit of a typo in the last video. Yes 2.9999 is 3, but the important part is 1.9999. Because you gave to shift the idea of base 10 back and forth to have base ten reveal itself. And that makes 1 then "2" but it's a special type of infinity you need to define a number. They bookend each other abd and in 1d, tge singularity is a number. Square or 2, literally allows you to go up a dimension. Primes in the first base 10 sequence are like hiw to jump dimensions

  • @nightlord531
    @nightlord531 4 года назад +11

    Here from Veritasium :)

  • @harryscully3642
    @harryscully3642 7 лет назад +4

    If I remember correctly, this is referenced in the great novel The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time

  • @Jeyekomon
    @Jeyekomon 7 лет назад

    This was one of the most interesting math videos I've seen on youtube!

  • @vetiarvind
    @vetiarvind 3 года назад

    Ooh there's a cricket bat on the back. Oddly enough feels like home to me now.
    Fascinating to know about the dual fixed point constant.

  • @LarsStokholm
    @LarsStokholm 7 лет назад +4

    I think this has become one of my all time favorite Numberphile videos. Very interesting. Is the GeoGebra file available for download anywhere?

  • @Krone37Io
    @Krone37Io 7 лет назад +3

    Holy shit! watching this video is like watch an epic movie in theater. it has everything: the set-up, tension building, climax, twist and a reward ending. am i having a nerd-gasm?

  • @georgehornsby2075
    @georgehornsby2075 7 лет назад

    One of the most interesting numberphile videos I've seen, not that I'm biased.

  • @RaphaelBarboza77
    @RaphaelBarboza77 7 лет назад

    Very nice, Brady! One of Numberphile's finest.

  • @Deguiko
    @Deguiko 7 лет назад +49

    This is quite an amazing video for such a boring title.

    • @completeandunabridged.4606
      @completeandunabridged.4606 7 лет назад +2

      Bruno Bandeira Pulse :)

    • @Ddiaboloer
      @Ddiaboloer 6 лет назад

      Bruno Bandeira Has the title changed or did I misremember the title being more boring than it is now?

    • @HalcyonSerenade
      @HalcyonSerenade 6 лет назад +2

      That's about the best way to describe math.

    • @hassanakhtar7874
      @hassanakhtar7874 3 года назад

      OGs know that the numberphile videos with numbers for titles are the best

  • @johnson8743
    @johnson8743 7 лет назад +28

    Make a video with Hannah in it! I really liked the secret Santa video BTW

    • @unvergebeneid
      @unvergebeneid 7 лет назад +31

      Let's be honest, Hannah Fry is the most seductive thing that ever happened to mathematics and I'm including Euler's identity here.

    • @Quantiad
      @Quantiad 7 лет назад +2

      Penny Lane - I'm adding Kelsey Houston-Edwards from PBS Infinite Series to my list of math babes. It now has two on it.

  • @d0tz_
    @d0tz_ 7 лет назад

    the mindblowing just goes on non-stop in this video, my jaw literally dropped when he revealed this is the real# part of the Mandelbrot set.

  • @TheGamblermusic
    @TheGamblermusic 7 лет назад

    so glad holidays are over so we get more numberphile videos

  • @Frahamen
    @Frahamen 7 лет назад +4

    15:05 To Infinity and beyond!

  • @iviasterzox22
    @iviasterzox22 7 лет назад +9

    I am not gona read them now out .. - continues to read them out loud.

  • @hanvyj2
    @hanvyj2 7 лет назад

    One of the best videos yet. I really liked this one.

  • @DommHavai
    @DommHavai 7 лет назад

    This was one of our tasks at programming course (figuring out behavior, calculating constants).

  • @arun2686
    @arun2686 4 года назад +3

    Who's here after youtube recommended this video, you were about to skip but then started thinking"wait a minute,thats the number from Veri..."

  • @noel2577
    @noel2577 4 года назад +4

    11:55 never seen anyone else do that before. might give it a try 😂😂😂

  • @StephenKatt
    @StephenKatt 7 лет назад +1

    I really enjoy the enthusiasm of these videos. I'm not even a math guy, but still, this stuff is fascinating and weird.

  • @YtseFrobozz
    @YtseFrobozz 4 года назад

    The last time I saw this graph was in a physics book... like 20 years ago. When he started to draw it again and it split the first time I got this eerie feeling like... I don't know what it is, but I know I've seen it before. Then when he drew the second split I said, "Oh this is chaos!"