This video has: A difference of two squares (math) A difference of two squares (they're on different squares) A difference of two squares (disagreement between nerds)
@@odenpetersen6028 Specifically, Leicester Square and Trafalgar Square in London. Which took me waaaaaay too long to realise. (Which are close enough that they walk between them at the end)
exactly but you can also say it about 1 being prime (unless you say prime needs to be the "multiple of only *2* numbers which are 1 and itself" instead of "only 1 and itself" which feels like cheating) also i love your channel
I believe 1 is usually explicitly not a prime number. 0 can also be excluded from integers when need to, but the most general definition of prime does not include 0, and the most general definition of square numbers does include 0 (non-negative rather then positive).
@@hapmaplapflapgap 0 can't be excluded from integers though. it's just not a positive integer (it's a non-negative one aka "natural number"). so it depends on their definition of "squares" really. in geometry a square of area 0 doesn't make much sense, but algebraically 0 being an integer i'd argue 0*0 is a square number. and apart from not being able to easily represented graphically it doesn't do anything different than any of the other square numbers they mentioned really. *and* is required for the "difference of squares" thing to even work. meanwhile 1 isn't a prime number because prime numbers aren't defined the way usually taught in school ("only divisible by 1 and themselves") but by being a "natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers". if 1 was a prime then a lot of things (even the sieve of eratosthenes we all probably toyed with back in school to learn that "1 and themselves" thing) would break down, instead 1 (and -1; and some others when talking about non-integers) is so special it's considered its own category called "unit", being essentially "what defines integerness" (and by extension "naturalness" and by extension "primality"). note up until even the 1950ies lots of mathematicians considered 1 a prime still, and before the middle ages they actually didn't because they didn't consider 1 a (natural) number (kinda like that whole "unit" thing, 1 is what makes all the other numbers therefore it's not a number to consider), which is why eratosthenes came up with a sieve that worked when you ignore 1. some of the greeks even rejected 2 as prime because they thought primes are a subset of odd numbers (because apart from 2 all the others are odd, therefore giving 2 that same treatment as 1 "it defines how the others behave therefore it's special", but that's not considered correct anymore because it doesn't really define anything about the remaining primes, it's just a side effect, just as 3 ruling out numbers divisible by 3 doesn't "define" primality. meanwhile 1 *does* define something about *all* primes: what an integer even is: n₀=0; nᵢ=nᵢ₋₁+ *1* )
@@nonchip You also lose some really nice theorems. "all natural numbers can be written uniquely as a product of primes" - Not anymore you can't, if 1 is a prime.
What's worse is that 550 (the number of seconds in this video) is one of those numbers with a remainder of 2 after division by 4, so can't be written as the difference of two squares. TRAGIC.
@Shiny Swalot Yep absolutely, I do. That's why I was wondering why I could not recognise the name even when I listened it twice, but I recognised it immediately when I saw it written down. And even when I go back and listen to it again, I still keep failing to hear the last name "Mould"... There is something in his pronunciation which beats me.
Ewan Marshall All odd numbers were only accounted for if we accept 0 as a perfect square. The proof breaks down for 1 otherwise. The only way in which 1 is the difference between two squares is as the difference between 0 and 1.
@Adam Filinovich except 0 is not a square number. You can prove this geometrically. Try to draw a square worth a side length of 0. You'll end up with a point, not a square.
I would love to see more videos in this "Dueling Disciplines" format! It's entertaining and is also a great way to give a thorough explanation of a specific topic.
I have to say, Matt's explanation is more pleasing. I like algebraic proofs and all, but visualising why something is true is more valuable knowledge imo.
The algebraic proof says no less about “why” something is true than the geometric. The difference is you. You interpret the visuals better than you interpret algebra. That’s true for most, but not all, and the reality is that algebra is a far more concise way of demonstrating mathematical truths.
At the end, I was getting serious deja vu watching James drive Matt crazy (I was arguing with my cousin this morning about something similar) And yes , I agree with James , 0's a perfectly fine number and I'll accept that it somehow makes the odds feel less -odd- special
I played with this when I was a teenager. I tried finding a similar method of solving cubes that way. It turns out that cubes work the same way, but with an additional rate of change. Consider 0, 1, 8, 27, 64, 125. The differences between those are 1, 7, 19, 37, 61, which differ by 6, 12, 18, 24, which all differ by 6. This holds true for any other root; eventually, if you keep breaking down its rates of change, you'll get down to and end number that is the factorial of the exponent. It took me a few years (and a calculus course) to realise that I was looking at repeated derivatives of the function. Which demonstrates beautifully ~WHY~ the sums of odd numbers works for finding squares because if f(x) = x^2, then f'(x) = 2x. Similarly with higher powers, we end up using the factorial of the exponent because we're going through the rate of change of the rate of change of the rate of change... I was both pleased with myself in understanding that and disappointed that this cool pattern I'd found was elementary calculus.
I already enjoyed this episode not even halfway through. However, not being an England native, Norwegian actually, I didn’t know James and Matt were actually on two different geographic locations both named something Square-ish. After watching I read some comments, realised this fact, and now appreciate the inner harmony of this episode! I applaud you, guys. Well done!
I'm amused at the people walking by in the background. If I saw a guy talking into a camera in a public square, and I heard he was talking about maths, I'd be VERY intrigued. ;)
Difference of two squares of the primes larger than 5, is a multiple of 12. p²-q²=12k for p,q>5 Primes (except for 2 and 3) are 1 or 5 in mod6. Since 6n+0, 6n+2, 6n+4 are even and 6n+3 is a multiple of 3. So primes are either 6n+1 or 6n+5. (Except 2 and 3) For simplicity let's say 6n-1 instead of 6n+5. p²-q² =(6n±1)²-(6m±1)² =(36n²±12n+1)-(36m²±12m+1) =36(n²-m²)+12(±n±m) =12(3n²-3m²±n±m) Therefore difference between two prime squares is a multiple of 12. For example 13²-7²=169-49=120=12*10
I've been calculating the smallest set of 2 perfect squares for every possible number I see for over 2.5 years (surprisingly easy formula-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it to use-basically the thing they did with 2 and 2k). Glad I'm not the only one.
Even easier: 4 = (√5)²-1² = (√3)²+1² If you don't restrict to integers, all numbers are obviously the difference and sum of 2 squares and there are infinite ways to do it. Choose any number a such that n+a² is a positive real number, and you can write n = (√(n+a²))²-a² Choose any number b such that n-b² is a positive real number, and you can write n = (√(n-b²))²+b²
Matt, I agreed with you on 438,579,088 not being a Munchhausen number (because that requires 0^0 = 0). But here, we disagree. The square of every other integer (positive or negative) is included, so why not 0?
Looks like it was fun making this! Also, you and the Numberphiles have turned me to maths. I hated it in school. I think that's a pretty great achievement :)
I like the argument, but (rt(3),3) lies on the y=x^2 graph, but 3 isn't a square number. I think the argument is that zero isn't seen as an integer, which is why he shudders when James says that zero is even
@@quadruplay9788 Zero is definitely real. It is part of the ordered set where every subset that has an upper bound has a least upper bound, ie. it's real.
Great video showing how maths can be expressed in many different ways. I personally love moving between graphic and algebraic methods. Very educational video!
Dr Grime in two Numberphile videos, now sharing the screen with another of my favorite RUclips personalities. This is too much. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
@@haniyasu8236 I remember , years ago they did a video where someone mentions that Steve , Matt and james have things named after them the Parker square, the mould affect and the grime dice a di is basically a cube so some need to link cubes and Parker squares
I love videos that show two different methods of tackling the same problem in mathematics! It really brings home how everything just fits together. You can draw it, and it looks like this ..... But even if you couldn't draw it, there is another way to work out what your drawing would tell you ..... It should be obvious that 4 can be written as the difference of two squares if 1 can; to get 4 times the difference, double both the initial numbers before you square them, so multiplying the minuend and subtrahend each by 4 and likewise the difference. (That's definitely easier in pictures than in words!)
This is the real value of RUclips and youtubers like you are! This video will let young boys and girls like my son understand the beauty of mathematics and inspire them to study and be a better person in future. Thank you.
I love how you did this actually from Leicester Square and Trafalgar Square, I was actually there recently I am sad that I missed you guys. Great video, I hope to see a greater number of collaborations on your channel and no that number can't be zero :p
Great video guys! I've always done it by saying that squares which are 2 apart account for every multiple of 4. (n+2)^2 - n^2 = 4n + 4. If you increment n, you get an output that's 4 higher. In other words, you get every multiple of 4. To get 4 itself as the difference of 2 squares, merely plug in 0 as n. It's pretty neat that 75% of all numbers can be expressed by the difference of 2 squares. Every odd (half the numbers) and half the evens (those which are multiples of 4, not just 2.)
I love what you guys do, you have inspired me by videos on your channel and numberphile appearances, please keep up the wonderful work and keep inspiring people to follow math :)
Now you just need to update your 2016 One True Parabola video using this same technique. I'm new to your content and caught it a few days ago. I didn't see why you didn't use the simple visual of spinning the parabola at 5:45 in that video as an alternative to all the math. The back and forth of the two techniques in this video was very entertaining. The parabola math was heavy on the squares too.
0 is an integer but not a neutral number. but as I said if you kick 0 out you kill their claim that all odds can be written as a different between two squares since the only way to write 1 as a different between two squares is 1^2-0^2
0 is a natural number as long as you construct natural numbers to have 0 in them. You can construct them starting with 0 or starting with 1, doesn't make that much of a difference. Still, I'd argue you should put 0 so the operation + has the identity element and other reasons regarding definitions.
@@pleaseenteraname4824 it's not a matter of when you start but when we say natural number we mean the numbers we count with. if you want, a positive integers. you then may argue let consider 0 as a positive number. but then a positive times a negative should be negative and 0 times a negative is 0 which we considered as positive, therefore we have a contradiction
raziel Keren No, that's not how it works. Naturals are not "positive integers", because they come before those. You first construct the naturals, the "standard" construction is that of Peano's set of axioms. You can put 0 and start with that, or just start at 1, it doesn't make that much of a difference, the numbers you end up with are the same. It's preferred to add 0 too because that way you have the identity element for the + operation, and many definitions/properties become somewhat easier (pass me the term). Only after you've constructed natural numbers you can pass on to integers, and now you can talk about positives and negatives. The only reason 0 is "neither" is because, in the definition we give, it just happens that the additive inverse (fancy way of saying opposite) of 0 is 0 itself, i.e. +0=-0.
How do you define a square number? If you define it as a/b=b then it is not. (I'm not a mathematician but from my perspective I think it should not be included into the list since 0 has the special property of returning itself when multiplied with any number while the defining feature of a square number is that it is the result of a number being multiplied with itself specifically)
If one can't be a prime, why should zero get to be a square?
Zero can be a Parker square.
0: not a square
1: not a prime
2: not an even number
3: doesn't exist
4: not x^x
5: not an odd number
6: not a perfect number
Anyone else?
@@benjamimapancake6429 7: not a mersenne prime
8: not a perfect cube
9: not a single digit number in base 10
10: not a power of ten
Because a perfect square is x•x, but a prime has exactly 2 factors. X•X? Just plug in 0. 2 factors? No. One has a single factor, which is 1.
If Matt calls 2 a subprime, maybe he can call 0 a subsquare.
Most ambitious crossover event in history.
Someone: Marvel Endgame is the most ambitious crossover in history!
Matt Parker: Hold my calculator!
Valdemar * calculator * lol
This video has:
A difference of two squares (math)
A difference of two squares (they're on different squares)
A difference of two squares (disagreement between nerds)
I recognize an aficionado of lists. And treble entendres.
They’re both standing outside in town squares
@@odenpetersen6028 Specifically, Leicester Square and Trafalgar Square in London. Which took me waaaaaay too long to realise.
(Which are close enough that they walk between them at the end)
@engineer99 Well yes, but actually no.
And the difference of two squared and two squares is... Two squares.
I'm slightly annoyed Squarespace didn't sponsor this video....
Yeah. Together with Foursquare. They're quite different.
@@McMxxCiV Cant stop laugh.. dude:D
@@McMxxCiV Man, that would be two truly different squares...
I think this video not being sponsored by Squarespace and/or Foursquare might be a war crime
They did. The whole video was the advertisement.
This Numberphile: Civil War trailer was brilliant. Definitely going to watch this one in theaters. 👍
Can't wait to see them reconnect in Numberphile: Endgame in a few years
@@GvinahGui Numberphile: Infinity War
They will fight until the true villain emerges: Steve Mould trying to convince the world we should be using tau instead of pi.
James turns himself into .9+.09+.009+... versions of himself, truly an epic scene.
@@GvinahGui Endgame Theory
Matt and James? This has to be a great video.
This IS a great video
Marvel: Infinity War is the most ambitious crossover event of all time.
Matt & James: *this video*
My number 1 favorite mathematician, James, + my number 2, Matt = awesome video.
Now get Brady to film them.
Two squares. :)
@@nitehawk86 and their odd difference!
Parker square: not quite right
Grimes square: algebraically precise
The gaussian way
The difference is surely an odd one...
*Grime
I like how they based an entire video on a pun while actually backing it up with an interesting demonstration about two different types of proof
While staying in two different squares :)
Absolutely :)
The footage of them in the squares is also square.
What’s the pun?
what? these two squares, and their differences? haha
It's just adorable seeing them walk through London arguing about whether 0 is a square number 😃
Idk. Looks pretty round to me.
Well 0×0=0 and √0=0, so it should count. I'm sure Matt also agrees, but had to disagree to make that last pun work.
@@user-vn7ce5ig1z I dunno man, Matt also won't accept tau as the superior circle constant.
i would accept that except, as matt said then any square number is difference of itself and zero squared
Well if they don't agree that 1 and 2 are prime numbers, why would they agree on this?
The difference of two squares? With Matt & James?
Let's see... James has more hair. Matt has a goofier accent.
Thanks, saved me from making a cheesy joke on the same lines 😁
They made the same joke at the end
Poofy and Goofy?
I don’t get it, please help
@@XxjazzperxX a "square" is also a word for a serious, maybe somewhat boring person. They use it as a joke about themselves.
James is right. I won't get out of bed for less than £(a² - b²).
Suddenly I’m ok with 0 being a square number.
plot twist: a is a complex number
@@Ultiminati $?
Plot twist: a < b
@@zecuse plot twist a = -5 and b = 3 O_O
Loving the Leicester Square and Trafalgar Square backgrounds
clf400 The difference of two squares, explained by two squares, in two squares.
Ohhh, I didn't get that.
never more than about 300 metres apart
Why no Parker Square background :P
They are definitely not squares. Uneven polygons at best
Wow this is such a fun video!! Love the editing and the math!
Thanks! Next time we’ll take a whiteboard with us…
I'm with James on this one: 0's an integer, and squaring an integer gets you a square number, so 0^2 is a square number.
exactly but you can also say it about 1 being prime (unless you say prime needs to be the "multiple of only *2* numbers which are 1 and itself" instead of "only 1 and itself" which feels like cheating)
also i love your channel
I believe 1 is usually explicitly not a prime number. 0 can also be excluded from integers when need to, but the most general definition of prime does not include 0, and the most general definition of square numbers does include 0 (non-negative rather then positive).
@@hapmaplapflapgap 0 can't be excluded from integers though. it's just not a positive integer (it's a non-negative one aka "natural number").
so it depends on their definition of "squares" really. in geometry a square of area 0 doesn't make much sense, but algebraically 0 being an integer i'd argue 0*0 is a square number. and apart from not being able to easily represented graphically it doesn't do anything different than any of the other square numbers they mentioned really. *and* is required for the "difference of squares" thing to even work.
meanwhile 1 isn't a prime number because prime numbers aren't defined the way usually taught in school ("only divisible by 1 and themselves") but by being a "natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers". if 1 was a prime then a lot of things (even the sieve of eratosthenes we all probably toyed with back in school to learn that "1 and themselves" thing) would break down, instead 1 (and -1; and some others when talking about non-integers) is so special it's considered its own category called "unit", being essentially "what defines integerness" (and by extension "naturalness" and by extension "primality"). note up until even the 1950ies lots of mathematicians considered 1 a prime still, and before the middle ages they actually didn't because they didn't consider 1 a (natural) number (kinda like that whole "unit" thing, 1 is what makes all the other numbers therefore it's not a number to consider), which is why eratosthenes came up with a sieve that worked when you ignore 1. some of the greeks even rejected 2 as prime because they thought primes are a subset of odd numbers (because apart from 2 all the others are odd, therefore giving 2 that same treatment as 1 "it defines how the others behave therefore it's special", but that's not considered correct anymore because it doesn't really define anything about the remaining primes, it's just a side effect, just as 3 ruling out numbers divisible by 3 doesn't "define" primality. meanwhile 1 *does* define something about *all* primes: what an integer even is: n₀=0; nᵢ=nᵢ₋₁+ *1* )
@@nonchip You also lose some really nice theorems. "all natural numbers can be written uniquely as a product of primes" - Not anymore you can't, if 1 is a prime.
Video length should have been 9:16 for two squares, missed opportunity
What's worse is that 550 (the number of seconds in this video) is one of those numbers with a remainder of 2 after division by 4, so can't be written as the difference of two squares. TRAGIC.
And 9:16 is 556 seconds, a multiple of 4, so it's a difference of two squares. Double missed opportunity.
@@McMxxCiV actually its 551 seconds. It say the video 9:11, for me at least. Which can be a difference of two squares.
@@hexeddecimals phew
9:36 would have been even better because:
9, 36 squares great, but additionaly
9 mins 36 secs= 576 secs =24*24 secs
at Leicester Square and Trafalgar Square talking about different Squares...brilliant :)
They don't quite make it to Leicester Square
"I am cheaper than Steve Mould"
I'm dying, I love these two
:) Thanks, I simply couldn't figure out whom they were talking about.
@@woowooNeedsFaith haha, you do know Steve Mould right?
@Shiny Swalot
Yep absolutely, I do. That's why I was wondering why I could not recognise the name even when I listened it twice, but I recognised it immediately when I saw it written down. And even when I go back and listen to it again, I still keep failing to hear the last name "Mould"... There is something in his pronunciation which beats me.
@@woowooNeedsFaith Ahh haha, glad I could help you then!
Shame it didn't help you discover someone new though
I once tried to get rid of Steve Mold, but apparently thanks to u I now have Steve Mould instead.
Oh right, and you're standing on different "squares" as you're explaining. Well played, good sirs!
And the footage of each of their arguments was also in a square shape.
OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Xeridanus: and, the two of them are both "squares"... in the sense of being geeky people. 🤓
Bring back the old public maths offs! Love this format.
Ha ha! Who else spotted the kid's super smooth wall dismount at 5:45?
How did he get that so wrong
a real parkour square, that one
More like Parker square of parkour
I didn't, but that's great!
At least, he gave it a go.
The final argument applies to 1 just as much as 4. It’s only the difference of two squares as (1)^2-(0)^2
It works also with switched places: 2^1-2^0 XD
1 is odd.. all odd numbers were already accounted for in the algebraic proof. :D
Ewan Marshall All odd numbers were only accounted for if we accept 0 as a perfect square. The proof breaks down for 1 otherwise. The only way in which 1 is the difference between two squares is as the difference between 0 and 1.
@Adam Filinovich except 0 is not a square number. You can prove this geometrically. Try to draw a square worth a side length of 0. You'll end up with a point, not a square.
@@TheRavenCoder A point is a square.
This got me into insanely good mood after a really crap day at work, thank you.
I like the Tetris style animations :)
+1
Except, they should probably be called... "Oddtris"?
@@35571113 Mattris?
@@_rlb matrix
Love this format where we see multiple proofs of the same thing
That deadpun ending... The quality for which we come to this channel!😂❤
I see James. I see Matt. I click.
Are you a dolphin?
@@JimmyLundberg What?
3:31 i love how the couple in the background is looking at the graph
I would love to see more videos in this "Dueling Disciplines" format! It's entertaining and is also a great way to give a thorough explanation of a specific topic.
I have to say, Matt's explanation is more pleasing. I like algebraic proofs and all, but visualising why something is true is more valuable knowledge imo.
The algebraic proof says no less about “why” something is true than the geometric. The difference is you. You interpret the visuals better than you interpret algebra. That’s true for most, but not all, and the reality is that algebra is a far more concise way of demonstrating mathematical truths.
I think my friends and family would be quite worried if they found out how much i enjoy watching mathmeticians banter over square numbers
At the end, I was getting serious deja vu watching James drive Matt crazy
(I was arguing with my cousin this morning about something similar)
And yes , I agree with James , 0's a perfectly fine number and I'll accept that it somehow makes the odds feel less -odd- special
* Parker Square jokes incoming *
When I saw the title, that was my reaction, too.
1:42 as parker as it gets
you got me
@@Goldap1000 Parker Tetris
Guilty as charged
I played with this when I was a teenager. I tried finding a similar method of solving cubes that way. It turns out that cubes work the same way, but with an additional rate of change. Consider 0, 1, 8, 27, 64, 125. The differences between those are 1, 7, 19, 37, 61, which differ by 6, 12, 18, 24, which all differ by 6. This holds true for any other root; eventually, if you keep breaking down its rates of change, you'll get down to and end number that is the factorial of the exponent.
It took me a few years (and a calculus course) to realise that I was looking at repeated derivatives of the function. Which demonstrates beautifully ~WHY~ the sums of odd numbers works for finding squares because if f(x) = x^2, then f'(x) = 2x. Similarly with higher powers, we end up using the factorial of the exponent because we're going through the rate of change of the rate of change of the rate of change...
I was both pleased with myself in understanding that and disappointed that this cool pattern I'd found was elementary calculus.
this video is perfect! The way you two juggle the algebraic and the visualization around it makes the equations make complete sense! Thank you!
Matt Parker & James Grime make a video together.
Brady: Am I a joke to you?
Good evening everyone and welcome back to... MAAAATH BAAATTLES
Math beatles
I already enjoyed this episode not even halfway through. However, not being an England native, Norwegian actually, I didn’t know James and Matt were actually on two different geographic locations both named something Square-ish. After watching I read some comments, realised this fact, and now appreciate the inner harmony of this episode! I applaud you, guys. Well done!
we need more of these colaborations. This was honestly one of the most fun maths videos I've ever watched.
You are great together. Looking forward to anothers. Love this format.
Between the persistence video, the cannonball video, and the elegance of these proofs, you've been on fire lately, Dr. Parker!
I'm amused at the people walking by in the background. If I saw a guy talking into a camera in a public square, and I heard he was talking about maths, I'd be VERY intrigued. ;)
Difference of two squares of the primes larger than 5, is a multiple of 12.
p²-q²=12k for p,q>5
Primes (except for 2 and 3) are 1 or 5 in mod6.
Since 6n+0, 6n+2, 6n+4 are even and 6n+3 is a multiple of 3. So primes are either 6n+1 or 6n+5. (Except 2 and 3)
For simplicity let's say 6n-1 instead of 6n+5.
p²-q²
=(6n±1)²-(6m±1)²
=(36n²±12n+1)-(36m²±12m+1)
=36(n²-m²)+12(±n±m)
=12(3n²-3m²±n±m)
Therefore difference between two prime squares is a multiple of 12.
For example
13²-7²=169-49=120=12*10
This is one of those videos that I wish I could like twice.
This is my favorite video you've done. Collaboration makes the world go round.
From: a 7th-12th grade mathematics teacher.
What about the difference of two Parker Squares though?
It's round about an integer
@@zeeshanmehmood4522
To be continued
I've been calculating the smallest set of 2 perfect squares for every possible number I see for over 2.5 years (surprisingly easy formula-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it to use-basically the thing they did with 2 and 2k). Glad I'm not the only one.
Isaac Peterson sounds like you’re a true nerd ❤️
I took the easy way out:
4=((1+i)(1-i)/√2)²-((1-i)(1-i)/√2)²
@@hetsmiecht1029 they were definitely talking about integers hence "easy way out" :p
Even easier: 4 = (√5)²-1² = (√3)²+1²
If you don't restrict to integers, all numbers are obviously the difference and sum of 2 squares and there are infinite ways to do it.
Choose any number a such that n+a² is a positive real number, and you can write n = (√(n+a²))²-a²
Choose any number b such that n-b² is a positive real number, and you can write n = (√(n-b²))²+b²
The way this video is structured is phenomenal.
Matt, I agreed with you on 438,579,088 not being a Munchhausen number (because that requires 0^0 = 0).
But here, we disagree. The square of every other integer (positive or negative) is included, so why not 0?
Looks like it was fun making this! Also, you and the Numberphiles have turned me to maths. I hated it in school. I think that's a pretty great achievement :)
5:44 great parcours training going on in background :D
YensR Parcours square and Parker Square 😂
I actually yelled when I realized the last joke.
Absolutely brilliant.
Zero not a square number?! So what happens when you graph y=x^2? Is there a discontinuity at x=0?
Loved the video!
I like the argument, but (rt(3),3) lies on the y=x^2 graph, but 3 isn't a square number. I think the argument is that zero isn't seen as an integer, which is why he shudders when James says that zero is even
@@minimike1995 Why 0 isn't seen as an integer? O.o
@@gabor6259 Also zero isn't real nor complex
@@quadruplay9788 How so? 0 is in every set. 0 is real, complex, quaternion, octonion, etc.
@@quadruplay9788 Zero is definitely real. It is part of the ordered set where every subset that has an upper bound has a least upper bound, ie. it's real.
Please do more videos in this style! And /please/ let this be foreshadowing a new channel where you and James collab/debate on different proofs!!
Who would win? A complex diagram and visual aid depicting your theorem
Or one numbery boy
*boi
Great video showing how maths can be expressed in many different ways. I personally love moving between graphic and algebraic methods. Very educational video!
What is this? My two favourite mathematicians in one video
4:44 I love the lady looking super confused right before Matt walked up (looking equally confused)
Matt: makes a cool graphic
James: G A U S S
Nice video. The star of this one is clearly the young person who fell to their hands and knees getting off the wall at 5:47. Brilliant.
"And that everyone, is the difference of two squares"
Perfect ending
Dr Grime in two Numberphile videos, now sharing the screen with another of my favorite RUclips personalities. This is too much. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
My 2 favourite mathematicians in a single video? Sign me up!
I love that you've joined your two passions, stand-up comedy and maths, and have been able to make a career out of it.
The difference of two *GRIME* squares
Every number is the difference between a Parker square and a Grime square
@@haniyasu8236 I remember , years ago they did a video where someone mentions that Steve , Matt and james have things named after them the Parker square, the mould affect and the grime dice a di is basically a cube so some need to link cubes and Parker squares
@@haniyasu8236 Except 4
@@timgheys Hey, it may not work for 4, but at least it gave it a go and did some working out
Hysterically funny!! Thanks for this great math video! Looking forward to more of them!!
I think Hannah Fry should sort out these two "squares" : )
So many new videos lately featuring James Grime! What a treat!
Every Parker is a Square of a Difference
What a colab! Thanks for the awesome videos!
You: Brings argument
_thats not how Gauss would have done it_
I like the bit where you talk about the difference of two towers at 9:11
Ok fine, the ending was pretty sweet.
I love videos that show two different methods of tackling the same problem in mathematics! It really brings home how everything just fits together. You can draw it, and it looks like this ..... But even if you couldn't draw it, there is another way to work out what your drawing would tell you .....
It should be obvious that 4 can be written as the difference of two squares if 1 can; to get 4 times the difference, double both the initial numbers before you square them, so multiplying the minuend and subtrahend each by 4 and likewise the difference. (That's definitely easier in pictures than in words!)
The greatest crossover since Infinity War
This is the real value of RUclips and youtubers like you are! This video will let young boys and girls like my son understand the beauty of mathematics and inspire them to study and be a better person in future. Thank you.
Received my Humble Pi today!
I love how you did this actually from Leicester Square and Trafalgar Square, I was actually there recently I am sad that I missed you guys. Great video, I hope to see a greater number of collaborations on your channel and no that number can't be zero :p
I guess zero is a Parker square...
I just watched a video of something I already know 4 years ago explained by two lovely gentlemen. Worth it.
And they said Avengers was the most ambitious crossover
Years later, still one of my top 5 favorite matt parker vids
The difference between these two squares is a whole lot of hair
The visual proofs are so pretty, the algebraic proofs are a great complement and the video itself is just hilarious. Hurray for such a great video.
I accept it, James.
James is also wrong with saying that 0 (zero) is an even number, it's not odd eighter ... which makes it confusing
@@richardhee The formula for odd numbers is 2n+1 as they said. You can write 0 that way because "n" would have to be a fraction.
Great video guys!
I've always done it by saying that squares which are 2 apart account for every multiple of 4.
(n+2)^2 - n^2 = 4n + 4. If you increment n, you get an output that's 4 higher. In other words, you get every multiple of 4. To get 4 itself as the difference of 2 squares, merely plug in 0 as n.
It's pretty neat that 75% of all numbers can be expressed by the difference of 2 squares. Every odd (half the numbers) and half the evens (those which are multiples of 4, not just 2.)
The difference of two squares,
Presented by two different squares
In different squares.
Awesome colaboration I realy love how you show two different approaches leading to the same answer(almost)
I understood James better
Sorry Matt!
I love a geometric proof over. And RUclips does as well.
Anyone else notice that person trip and fall to the left at 5:46 ? hahah
I love what you guys do, you have inspired me by videos on your channel and numberphile appearances, please keep up the wonderful work and keep inspiring people to follow math :)
This whole video was a set-up for the pun at the end.
They both are rather square people, and they have a difference of opinion. Get it?
The pun is that one was in Trafalgar Square and the other was in Leicester Square.
@@DerekHartley I'd argue it works both ways.
Now you just need to update your 2016 One True Parabola video using this same technique. I'm new to your content and caught it a few days ago. I didn't see why you didn't use the simple visual of spinning the parabola at 5:45 in that video as an alternative to all the math. The back and forth of the two techniques in this video was very entertaining. The parabola math was heavy on the squares too.
And they said you couldn't put every odd number into a RUclips video title
The algebraic approach is more intuitive to me, so the geometric visualization somehow taught me more. Love this video
I'm siding with James on this one.
Also: a Parker odd number can be described as the difference between two Parker squares
james and matt just chatting along the street looks so wholesome
I side with James on this.
Unless you are saying that 0 is not an integer, clearly 0x0=0... Therefore 0 is a square number.
0 is an integer but not a neutral number.
but as I said if you kick 0 out you kill their claim that all odds can be written as a different between two squares since the only way to write 1 as a different between two squares is 1^2-0^2
0 is a natural number as long as you construct natural numbers to have 0 in them. You can construct them starting with 0 or starting with 1, doesn't make that much of a difference. Still, I'd argue you should put 0 so the operation + has the identity element and other reasons regarding definitions.
@@pleaseenteraname4824
it's not a matter of when you start but when we say natural number we mean the numbers we count with.
if you want, a positive integers.
you then may argue let consider 0 as a positive number.
but then a positive times a negative should be negative and 0 times a negative is 0 which we considered as positive, therefore we have a contradiction
raziel Keren No, that's not how it works. Naturals are not "positive integers", because they come before those. You first construct the naturals, the "standard" construction is that of Peano's set of axioms. You can put 0 and start with that, or just start at 1, it doesn't make that much of a difference, the numbers you end up with are the same. It's preferred to add 0 too because that way you have the identity element for the + operation, and many definitions/properties become somewhat easier (pass me the term).
Only after you've constructed natural numbers you can pass on to integers, and now you can talk about positives and negatives. The only reason 0 is "neither" is because, in the definition we give, it just happens that the additive inverse (fancy way of saying opposite) of 0 is 0 itself, i.e. +0=-0.
How do you define a square number?
If you define it as a/b=b then it is not.
(I'm not a mathematician but from my perspective I think it should not be included into the list since 0 has the special property of returning itself when multiplied with any number while the defining feature of a square number is that it is the result of a number being multiplied with itself specifically)
James AND Matt? This is glorious!!!