option a) We're biased because the video mentioned only thumbs so people with double loops elesewhere are less likely to comment. b) I'm guessing double loops happen because there happened to be a separation in the process that makes the fingerprint resulting in two opposing loops. If this is true, then there would have to be independent for a relatively long time for the effect to take place. If they merge too fast I'd be willing to put money on the table it becomes a whirl. Therefore, double loops are more likely to happen if there's space for two independent processes to happen. The thumb is the finger with the most area, ergo the thumb is the most likely to have a double loop.
@@nkellyy I know what you are talking about, but for the most part fingerprint identification is done by hand. It ended up that the people "checking" to see if the fingerprints matched saw a difference but this guy was "so perfect" that they ignored the issue and still told authorities that it was him.
also I'm pretty sure in most cases you will only get a very small partial fingerprint from a crime scene. and while its almost impossible for the entire finger to be similar to someone else, when you are only working with a partial things get a bit more complicated.
Short answer: Yes. And the proprietary(aka probably shitty but well packaged) implementations of fingerprint sensors introduce even more noise. The reality is that one in ca 400 people would probably be able to unlock your iphone with their thumbprint. This is precisely why at the border all 10 fingers are tested on a much better sensor to improve on false positives.
Loved this episode guys! There's something fascinating about fingerprints - maybe because they're one of the first things we start to learn about within biology as kids? Either way, great episode!
Haven't seen it but would guess that false matches are more to do with the technology being used to identify/distinguish them not being accurate/reliable enough.
Well, if you have that rare thing where you don't form fingerprints, then everyone else who has that will have truly identical fingerprints to you. So you're not wrong, but I'm technically right... the best kind of right!
2:03 this is misleading. see the Birthday problem. Let say you use a random generator between 1 and 2^50, to assign a random number for each person. then after 33,554,432 (that is 2^25) peoples you have 50% that 2 of them got the same number. *note I've assigned only 1 number to a person, since there are 10 fingerprints for a person we get to 50% after only ~3,000,000 people.
using 1-e^(-(n^2)/(d*2)) where "n" is the number of samples (fingerprints) and "d" is the number of possible values. we get that for n=8*10^10 and d=2^50 the probability is practically 1 that 2 finger prints will be the same.
+elraviv Even so, this number still blows out of proportion when you account for the relative position of these occurrences as well. All this means is that you only need about 3 million people before there is an expected match of the sequence of markers, but when you factor in their relative location, the numbers still become astronomically large leading to a near 0% chance that any two people to ever live have ever shared a finger print.
@@eragon78 But at 1:50 he did NOT ignore the relative position in his simplification. he ordered the splits & dead ends according to their position in his string representation. If he were to ignore their position, then all the splits would have been bunched together followed by all the dead ends, and he would have gotten only about 50 possible combinations instead of 2^50. Also see on RUclips "Adam Ruins Everything - Why Fingerprinting Is Flawed". And in the podcast "Science vs." episode 9 "Forensic Science" the best estimation talks about a 1 in 300 error rate when comparing fingerprints - they have the research in their show notes.
About mathematics: actually it is mathematicly proven that there is non zero chance that Your fingerprints may not be unique. Chance is very close to zero but not zero. It's like it is mathematicly proven that there is non zero chance that sometime someone somewhere might take his clothes perfectly folded from washing machine after wash. ;)
Fixided those seem small but are lot bigger in reality. First of all we need to accout technical posibbilities. Single points might be in fact different but difference might be unmeasurable. Hence collisions are not so rare. There is no difference if we can't measure it. Whats more each pattern has same chance of occuring.
Well since he mentioned relative positions as well, and since relative positions are on a continuum, there are infinitely many possibilities, so the probability is zero. However, if you think of the universe as being 'pixelated' at the planck length or something, then yes, the possibilities are finite, so the probability is nonzero. HOWEVER, if you also consider the SIZE of a persons finger as a determining fact, with variations from the mean decaying normally, then there are again infinitely many possibilities, so the probability is zero. tldr; it depends
@@gurnug I don't mean to undermine your "smartness" In a chaotic system like this with many variables in play, you're gonna get a chatoic result. I wager the "possibilities" are more that just 1 in 7 billion, not even 1 in the history of every human who lives or ever will live. There's so many chaotic variables that it might as well be call impossible. Saying non-zero is stupid; yes all smart and non smart people understand the basics of chances. Saying non-zero for the sake of non-zero is dumb. Let's just simplify it and say it's impossible.
100% identical is very improbable but the most common type of fingerprint sensor on our phones only take a small portion of it and similarities at that scale became more plausible.
Even if they only take 20-30% of the splits and merges, the exponential nature still makes it basically impossible. Fingerprint hacking is possible, but involves sampling the fingerprint to trick it.
2:58 I can use my fingerprint to unlock the app that stores all of my passwords 0:03 Hi, this is Dave, here is a high res image of all of my fingerprints Be on your toes, Dave.
it is impossible to analyze every single possible difference when analyzing fingerprints, so the features that are used are much fewer. That means that the probability of finding a match is much higher. If they actually used all of the possible features to distinguish fingerprints, it is nearly impossible that they would ever get false positives.
My left thumb print Is neat looking. I sliced it open once and had to have it stitched closed. Not only can you see the scar but the loops no longer meet up. They are all shifted just slightly off.
I have something similar with my palms...I had a bad fall one time (that also gave me a black eye that turned into a permanent injury in the back of my eye...but I digress.) that ripped open my palms. I didn't need stitches or anything, but it still changed the path of my "life-lines" in my palms...on the left hand they're just kind of jagged...but on the right hand, one of them is actually broken in one spot, and connects to another lifeline in a spot it didn't used to.
"I swear by the Day of Resurrection. And I swear by the reproaching soul (sinful one at that day). Does man think that We will not assemble his bones? (Again after death) Yes. [We are] Able [even] to proportion/ *perfect* *his* *fingertips* . But man desires to go ahead indulging in sin. He asks, "When is the Day of Resurrection?" So when vision is dazzled. And the moon darkened, And the sun and the moon are joined, Man will say on that Day, 'Where to escape?' No! There is no refuge. To your Lord, that Day, is the [place of] permanence."
There have been several criminal justice cases of coincident fingerprints, most of these were procedural errors wherein the fingerprint of a police officer or technician's print was mistaken for that of a suspect. Most of the remainder were matches due to the limitations of the technology recording fingerprints. But I think there was one case in which there was a real-life pair of identical fingerprints in different people.
@@palmomki If you have too low a margin of tolerance for subtle differences between fingerprints, then you arrive at a situation where two prints taken from the same finger seconds apart are recognised as different. Random thermal motion, adsorbtion and release of atmospheric gases, shifting skin oils - as you approach the atomic level, things stop being as static as they appear from our perspective. Also, as you approach the atomic level, the surface stops being continuous. For that matter, things get tricky at the cellular level - you can't have arbitrary fractions of a cell...
@@palmomki its proably something like a 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(and then a few trillion more zeros)1% chance of having the same fingerprint as someone else
1:50 But you did NOT ignore position in your simplification. you ordered the splits & dead ends according to their position in your line representation. If you were to ignore their position, then in your representation all the splits would have been together followed by all the dead ends. meaning only about 50 possible combinations.
Basically, all finger prints are unique to a cellular precision level, but machines that look at your fingerprints aren't unique. The machines can only see the general structure or something similar, so you'll get cases where two fingerprints are not the same, but the machine will say "they are close enough" and therefore the two will match up as being the same.
The chance of there having been two people of the roughly 100 billion humans who've ever lived who had the same set of ten fingerprints is so small that you can ignore it completely. The chance of a given partial fingerprint producing multiple matches when compared to everyone in the world, while still small, is large enough (particularly with smaller portions of the full print) that it should be taken into account - particularly when looking at cases where the only reason for associating someone with the case is the fingerprint evidence.
@@vaxivop1 It's not just the machines. The machines search databases for potential matches but an actual expert has to verify the match. The problem is in the human aspect. Machines would be better suited to find exact matches but we humans don't like that idea so we therefore accept a certain degree of human error. While it may be less than 1%, that's alot considering the amount of convictions based on fingerprint evidence.
@@mvsawyer Ah yeah, probably. In any case, even if we allowed machines to do 100% of the work it wouldn't be perfect, but it's absolutely even worse when we allow human error too.
I have the double loop whirl on both my thumbs and all my fingers have loops that mirror each other except for my pointers which go in the same direction as each other
I have a question... If I hurt or burn my finger where the fingerprint is, after it heals and the skin grows back, is the fingerprint the same as the old one?
मेरे एक दोस्त ने दिल्ली से यह टेस्ट करवाया है Brain shaper से , जिससे उसके Personality बिल्कुल exact match कर रही है वह बता रहा हैं कि वहां इस Software को बेच रहे हैं, ताकि लोग इसके साथ अपना बिजनेस शुरू कर सकें। बेंगलुरु में इस सॉफ़्टवेयर कैसे मिल सकता है?
I read the paper in your sources, they say the basal layer cells grow fatest and apply pressure on the dermis underneath because it is softer than epidermis layer, but in your video you state that the dermis is growing the fastest. Did I understand something wrong? Not trying to be rude, just asking for some clarification because I am writing an essay on the subject and I am not sure whether I understood it right
Technically, you can have identical fingerprints because you can't cut a quark in half, but the chance of that happening is quite rare. The universe would most likely kill us with heat death before we manage to find two identical fingerprints. Edit: Just realized that today's technology for scanning fingerprints isn't too accurate, so it is entirely possible to have two fingerprints that can't be proven to be nonidentical because the most accurate fingerprint-reading machine in the world couldn't find some ridiculously small difference.
Start getting all the finger. points now to start and move foward into plan b in skin and hair. Send me a chart when done. Any phone work to independent tracking.
I downloaded Overwatch on my pc a week or two ago, so I am absolutely addicted. My teacher sent us this video to watch and I was probably the only one who noticed Soldier 76 and I went crazy over it.
I was curious on how the birthday paradox works out with those numbers. tldr there is almost certainly 2 people with the same forks/dead-ends, but almost certainly no two people with the same fingerprints. Unfortunately, the computation for the exact value is ridiculous (trying to do the factorial of 2 x 10^26 is just outrageous), so I had to go with an approximation. For n persons and d unique fingerprints, p(n,d) ~= 1 - e^(-n^2 / 2d) The population of earth is around 7.5 x 10^9 If we use the simplification of forks/dead-ends, then d = 2^50. That gives p(n,d) ~= 1-e^(-(7.5*10^9)^2 / (2 * 2^50)) = 1.0 (According to WolframAlpha) But, if we use the actual approximation, then d = 2 * 10^36 p(n,d) ~= 1-e^(-(7.5*10^9)^2 / (2 * 2 *10^36)) = 1.40625... × 10^-17 ...which is basically 0. Huzzah!
We don't even need to calculate to know you messed up the math in your first model. There's no way in hell two people have an identical ordered list of 50 binary values. I see you alluding to the birthday problem, and likely trying to avoid your own bias. But think it through again. Can you see how the value of the exponential expressions varies with respect to as n/d? Both probabilities are tiny
My right index finger has that rare double thing and my left index finger probably has some super rare finger print because I can't find it anywhere on the internet. It looks like a spiked hill with an upside down loop on top of it. And there is a double triangle (shaped like "M"). It's giving off Van Gogh vibes.
They might've lived in a time before we started using fingerprints for identification. That's a thing too: even if someone with ur exact fingerprint existed, they most likely, I can almost say certainly, did/will not live in the same time as you do, as in you will die before that person will have been born, or the other way around.
"For Saks and Koehler, however, no probability of duplication is small enough to warrant an opinion that DNA or anything else is unique. Thus, they reject the reasoning that a “probability of two individuals having the same fingerprint is one out of 1 • 10^60 . . . is so small as to exclude the possibility of any two individuals having the same fingerprints.”[30] They are correct, but only in the trivial sense that every event with a nonzero probability is a “possibility.” P = 10^-60 is supposed to be the probability that two randomly selected people will have matching fingerprints. Although I doubt the accuracy of the estimated match probability, [31] the allegedly “faulty logic” [32]-the move from P = 10^-60 for the probability of a match to a randomly selected pair to zero for the probability of a match for all possible pairs-is defensible. Suppose that the world’s population (N) is seven billion. The number of distinct pairs of people is N(N - 1)/2, which is on the order of 10^19. Even for this many comparisons, when each has only a probability of 10^-60 of being the same, the chance of one or more identical fingerprints in the world’s population is about 10^-41.[33] Technically, this probability is greater than zero, but that mathematical truism hardly makes it fallacious to exclude as totally unrealistic the thought of a matching fingerprint from someone else. It is not a fallacy to infer uniqueness (both specific and general) when the match probability P is immensely smaller than the reciprocal of the size of a population of objects, every one of whose members has the small probability P of matching. Thus, the problem with using probability theory to demonstrate uniqueness is not that the probability of duplication always exceeds zero. The difference might be too small to matter. Such demonstrations are generally unconvincing because it is so hard to establish that the models are sufficiently realistic and accurate to trust the computed probabilities. But sometimes probabilities are negligible. Just think about the chance that you would suffocate because all the nearby molecules of oxygen in the room would happen to move to the other half of the room. A few simple assumptions and a bit of statistical mechanics demonstrate that the possibility need not worry us." source: Kaye, David H., Probability, Individualization, and Uniqueness in Forensic Science Evidence: Listening to the Academies (June 26, 2009). Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 1163-1185, Summer 2010. Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=1261970
This video only exists so he could flex his rare fingerprint pattern
Weird flex but nice illustration
Rare... Not unique... the spellibg is right - the title wrong
The video is a sponsored one. Why would I pay for a password manager if I can have an opensource one for free?
weird flex but ok
Weird flex but cool fingerprint
“Or, in the case of my left thumb, a somewhat rarer double loop whirl”
Weird flex, but ok.
I also have double loop. Now we are all boring.
My right thumb is a double loop. What is it with thumbs and double loops?
option
a) We're biased because the video mentioned only thumbs so people with double loops elesewhere are less likely to comment.
b) I'm guessing double loops happen because there happened to be a separation in the process that makes the fingerprint resulting in two opposing loops. If this is true, then there would have to be independent for a relatively long time for the effect to take place. If they merge too fast I'd be willing to put money on the table it becomes a whirl. Therefore, double loops are more likely to happen if there's space for two independent processes to happen. The thumb is the finger with the most area, ergo the thumb is the most likely to have a double loop.
Lol same
Shook, I have a double loop on my left thumb too...
"Hi, this is David from Minute Earth, and these are my fingerprints"
FINALLY THE LAST THING I NEEDED TO COMMIT MY CRIME SPREE
Hol up
@@HaniSiKucing wait a minute
@@greatmeetings1565 sumthin aint right!
Who else spent too much time after watching this staring at their fingers?
I already did that before watching the video.
How come this comment is from 17 hours ago when the video was released 7 minutes ago?
@@fancycat6817 Patreon
I feel like mine are really boring after watching this video, anyone else?
@@fancycat6817 I'm a time traveler
But the fingerprint sensor only scans a small section of the fingerprint. Does this fact make them unsecure?
Je you have a copy of the print It's really easy... just take a copy from a used Class of the person
@@nkellyy I know what you are talking about, but for the most part fingerprint identification is done by hand. It ended up that the people "checking" to see if the fingerprints matched saw a difference but this guy was "so perfect" that they ignored the issue and still told authorities that it was him.
also I'm pretty sure in most cases you will only get a very small partial fingerprint from a crime scene. and while its almost impossible for the entire finger to be similar to someone else, when you are only working with a partial things get a bit more complicated.
@@nkellyy there's also smearing and area of the fingerprint recovered
Short answer: Yes. And the proprietary(aka probably shitty but well packaged) implementations of fingerprint sensors introduce even more noise. The reality is that one in ca 400 people would probably be able to unlock your iphone with their thumbprint. This is precisely why at the border all 10 fingers are tested on a much better sensor to improve on false positives.
Loved this episode guys! There's something fascinating about fingerprints - maybe because they're one of the first things we start to learn about within biology as kids? Either way, great episode!
Hang on. Didn't Adam Ruins Everything did a video on how fingerprints aren't foolproof and that there have been cases of false matches?
Haven't seen it but would guess that false matches are more to do with the technology being used to identify/distinguish them not being accurate/reliable enough.
@@atomicmrpelly or not having a clean or complete print
It's the machines not the fingerprints. Fingerprints to the exact preciseness are unique. The machines however can't get to such a precise level.
Those are technically issues with our ability to distinguish the differences, which have and continue to be less than fantastic.
@atomicmrpelly Ah that makes more sense. Thanks for the comment :)
Well, if you have that rare thing where you don't form fingerprints, then everyone else who has that will have truly identical fingerprints to you.
So you're not wrong, but I'm technically right... the best kind of right!
Liked for the quote, it really is the best kind of correct.
Technically the truth
there is still plenty of uniquiness just no pattern
they won't have the same fingerprints as you because none of you have fingerprints
"I sanded my fingerprints off years ago after the Lufthansa heist"
-Lillian Kaushtupper
2:03 this is misleading. see the Birthday problem.
Let say you use a random generator between 1 and 2^50, to assign a random number for each person. then after 33,554,432 (that is 2^25) peoples you have 50% that 2 of them got the same number.
*note I've assigned only 1 number to a person, since there are 10 fingerprints for a person we get to 50% after only ~3,000,000 people.
using 1-e^(-(n^2)/(d*2)) where "n" is the number of samples (fingerprints) and "d" is the number of possible values. we get that for n=8*10^10 and d=2^50 the probability is practically 1 that 2 finger prints will be the same.
+elraviv Even so, this number still blows out of proportion when you account for the relative position of these occurrences as well. All this means is that you only need about 3 million people before there is an expected match of the sequence of markers, but when you factor in their relative location, the numbers still become astronomically large leading to a near 0% chance that any two people to ever live have ever shared a finger print.
@@eragon78 But at 1:50 he did NOT ignore the relative position in his simplification. he ordered the splits & dead ends according to their position in his string representation.
If he were to ignore their position, then all the splits would have been bunched together followed by all the dead ends, and he would have gotten only about 50 possible combinations instead of 2^50.
Also see on RUclips "Adam Ruins Everything - Why Fingerprinting Is Flawed".
And in the podcast "Science vs." episode 9 "Forensic Science" the best estimation talks about a 1 in 300 error rate when comparing fingerprints - they have the research in their show notes.
elraviv I see that you have a A in math
About mathematics: actually it is mathematicly proven that there is non zero chance that Your fingerprints may not be unique. Chance is very close to zero but not zero. It's like it is mathematicly proven that there is non zero chance that sometime someone somewhere might take his clothes perfectly folded from washing machine after wash. ;)
But with that kind of odds, even mathematicians call it impossible.
Fixided those seem small but are lot bigger in reality. First of all we need to accout technical posibbilities. Single points might be in fact different but difference might be unmeasurable. Hence collisions are not so rare. There is no difference if we can't measure it. Whats more each pattern has same chance of occuring.
1 in 7 billion is a tiny non 0 chance and would mean there is likely to be 1 pair of matching prints (and 15 in human history).
Well since he mentioned relative positions as well, and since relative positions are on a continuum, there are infinitely many possibilities, so the probability is zero. However, if you think of the universe as being 'pixelated' at the planck length or something, then yes, the possibilities are finite, so the probability is nonzero. HOWEVER, if you also consider the SIZE of a persons finger as a determining fact, with variations from the mean decaying normally, then there are again infinitely many possibilities, so the probability is zero.
tldr; it depends
@@gurnug
I don't mean to undermine your "smartness"
In a chaotic system like this with many variables in play, you're gonna get a chatoic result.
I wager the "possibilities" are more that just 1 in 7 billion, not even 1 in the history of every human who lives or ever will live. There's so many chaotic variables that it might as well be call impossible.
Saying non-zero is stupid; yes all smart and non smart people understand the basics of chances.
Saying non-zero for the sake of non-zero is dumb. Let's just simplify it and say it's impossible.
So you say that, after I murdered somebody, telling the police that my long lost one-eyed twin did it, is a bad idea, right?
KuruGDI Asking for a friend?
0:08 odd flex.. But OK.
Just because you have a time machine, doesn't mean it's okay to steal my jokes six hours before I think of them.
L i got 3
100% identical is very improbable but the most common type of fingerprint sensor on our phones only take a small portion of it and similarities at that scale became more plausible.
Even if they only take 20-30% of the splits and merges, the exponential nature still makes it basically impossible. Fingerprint hacking is possible, but involves sampling the fingerprint to trick it.
2:58 I can use my fingerprint to unlock the app that stores all of my passwords
0:03 Hi, this is Dave, here is a high res image of all of my fingerprints
Be on your toes, Dave.
There has been a case where two finger prints were the same/extremely similar tho. Someone was wrongfully arrested because of it
it is impossible to analyze every single possible difference when analyzing fingerprints, so the features that are used are much fewer. That means that the probability of finding a match is much higher. If they actually used all of the possible features to distinguish fingerprints, it is nearly impossible that they would ever get false positives.
There's like a 1 in 64 million chance of that happening lol
@@kkunicorn4030 considering that there are 7 billion people in the world
Nice one! those puns are getting butter, and ur thumb is pretty cool
That is the best explanation of fingerprints I ever saw and it only took a few minutes.
0:47
OH MY GOODNESS
IT'S GINNY, GRED, AND FORGE!
WEASELYS!
My left thumb print Is neat looking. I sliced it open once and had to have it stitched closed. Not only can you see the scar but the loops no longer meet up. They are all shifted just slightly off.
I have something similar with my palms...I had a bad fall one time (that also gave me a black eye that turned into a permanent injury in the back of my eye...but I digress.) that ripped open my palms. I didn't need stitches or anything, but it still changed the path of my "life-lines" in my palms...on the left hand they're just kind of jagged...but on the right hand, one of them is actually broken in one spot, and connects to another lifeline in a spot it didn't used to.
This is the most interesting video I’ve watched on this channel for a while, thank you
Guys, you excelled yourself with this one. Chapeau!
"I swear by the Day of Resurrection.
And I swear by the reproaching soul (sinful one at that day).
Does man think that We will not assemble his bones? (Again after death)
Yes. [We are] Able [even] to proportion/ *perfect* *his* *fingertips* .
But man desires to go ahead indulging in sin.
He asks, "When is the Day of Resurrection?"
So when vision is dazzled.
And the moon darkened,
And the sun and the moon are joined,
Man will say on that Day, 'Where to escape?'
No! There is no refuge.
To your Lord, that Day, is the [place of] permanence."
He's very pleased with his double whirl 😂
"I found prince!"
"No no finger prints!"
"I don't think so"
0:18 I've got you in my sights.
What a fantastic explanation!
Yall are amazing, yall cover so many topics and it's great to learn something new I personally love the animal videos but they are still great
I need my stereo microscope STAT! To the lab! Looks like I have a lot of forks.
Weird flex: i have _4 Rare Double Loop Whorls_ on my fingers
*_-i am so special-_*
If you have 4 of them
You came from the depths of heaven *-nope, it didn't-*
And I have 1, I'm from the depths of norma
Dang, and I was think of flexing with my 2 double loop whorl fingerprints.
Thank you very much for answering my question!
Sounds intriguing as always!!! 😁
This is one of the only channels you can trust for true info...
That was actually a completely mathematical and biological correct - a valid explanation!
Thank you :)
All my fingerprints are a loop except my ring ring finger.
There have been several criminal justice cases of coincident fingerprints, most of these were procedural errors wherein the fingerprint of a police officer or technician's print was mistaken for that of a suspect. Most of the remainder were matches due to the limitations of the technology recording fingerprints. But I think there was one case in which there was a real-life pair of identical fingerprints in different people.
Always new every person’s fingerprints were unique, and now I know why! Cool!
However unlikely, still has a finite, non-zero probability of occurring, just like we humans existed in the first place.
What?
palmomki yeah
@@palmomki The probability cannot be 0, as then we would not have fingerprints at all.
@@palmomki
If you have too low a margin of tolerance for subtle differences between fingerprints, then you arrive at a situation where two prints taken from the same finger seconds apart are recognised as different. Random thermal motion, adsorbtion and release of atmospheric gases, shifting skin oils - as you approach the atomic level, things stop being as static as they appear from our perspective.
Also, as you approach the atomic level, the surface stops being continuous.
For that matter, things get tricky at the cellular level - you can't have arbitrary fractions of a cell...
@@palmomki its proably something like a 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(and then a few trillion more zeros)1% chance of having the same fingerprint as someone else
I always wanted a video of thisss thanksss :)
1:50 But you did NOT ignore position in your simplification. you ordered the splits & dead ends according to their position in your line representation.
If you were to ignore their position, then in your representation all the splits would have been together followed by all the dead ends. meaning only about 50 possible combinations.
Chaos can only form chaos, but a process of symmetry forming and breaking can form chaos with the potential for greater symmetry!
0:20 Has soldier 76
0:22 Someone on the production team plays Overwatch I see...
Anvil yay I’m not the only one who noticed
Actually Ever does too
@@Ash-ti1ei In a video where he was talking about accounts I saw overwatch there lol
I thought the whole : no set of fingerprint is identical was pesuado science. I'm confused now.
Basically, all finger prints are unique to a cellular precision level, but machines that look at your fingerprints aren't unique. The machines can only see the general structure or something similar, so you'll get cases where two fingerprints are not the same, but the machine will say "they are close enough" and therefore the two will match up as being the same.
The chance of there having been two people of the roughly 100 billion humans who've ever lived who had the same set of ten fingerprints is so small that you can ignore it completely.
The chance of a given partial fingerprint producing multiple matches when compared to everyone in the world, while still small, is large enough (particularly with smaller portions of the full print) that it should be taken into account - particularly when looking at cases where the only reason for associating someone with the case is the fingerprint evidence.
Same with stamping with different pressure. It is the same stamp but you got different mark. Yet still similar.
@@vaxivop1 It's not just the machines. The machines search databases for potential matches but an actual expert has to verify the match. The problem is in the human aspect. Machines would be better suited to find exact matches but we humans don't like that idea so we therefore accept a certain degree of human error. While it may be less than 1%, that's alot considering the amount of convictions based on fingerprint evidence.
@@mvsawyer Ah yeah, probably. In any case, even if we allowed machines to do 100% of the work it wouldn't be perfect, but it's absolutely even worse when we allow human error too.
The title is foreshadowing Jevil comments
Mine are mostly loops, except for two weird ones that I believe technically have the properties of a very narrow double loop whorl.
0:48 Is that Ginny, Fred, and George Weasley??? Their holding wands!!
On one of the sentences David said(I can't remember which),I thought he said "How solar pads roasted gravity".
Now I can unlock your phone with that print now, thanks. - A Robber
After this video, I had to dip my fingers into ink to see my fingerprints...
*Thanks for that* @MinuteEarth
Thank you! Now we can misuse your fingerprints as we see fit :3
I just noticed.
I have a double swirl finger prints.
0:20 am I they only one that noticed soldier 76 #overwatch
No
0:20
I saw him too
no
It has intrigued me that one can cut one's fingerprint, and it will heal perfectly.
But if you get a cut or large finger print altering wound on your finger, does it grow back to the same finger print?
my left thumb also has a very interesting and exciting double loop whirl
Minute flex with he's double loop whorl
Me who also got a double loop whorl: *flex deflection*
I have the double loop whirl on both my thumbs and all my fingers have loops that mirror each other except for my pointers which go in the same direction as each other
Dude, the first title and thumbnail were much better!
I have a question...
If I hurt or burn my finger where the fingerprint is, after it heals and the skin grows back, is the fingerprint the same as the old one?
I have a triple loop whirl
मेरे एक दोस्त ने दिल्ली से यह टेस्ट करवाया है Brain shaper से , जिससे उसके Personality बिल्कुल exact match कर रही है वह बता रहा हैं कि वहां इस Software को बेच रहे हैं, ताकि लोग इसके साथ अपना बिजनेस शुरू कर सकें। बेंगलुरु में इस सॉफ़्टवेयर कैसे मिल सकता है?
00:01 Since back then until today I realized that It actually was _Minute (time)_ Earth ,not _Minute (frequency)_ Earth!
What?
Well, interesting, I also have this double-loopy fingerprint and I didnt even know its rare... I'm feeling special😉
OMG I HAVE A DOUBLE LOOP ON MY THUMBS!!!
Imagine if someone had the same finger prints. Now That’s unique
This was actually very interesting 😵😄
Fingerprints are chaos, but the *_Instagram Egg_* is perfection
Ikr
i have a double loop whirl and now I feel special
I read the paper in your sources, they say the basal layer cells grow fatest and apply pressure on the dermis underneath because it is softer than epidermis layer, but in your video you state that the dermis is growing the fastest. Did I understand something wrong? Not trying to be rude, just asking for some clarification because I am writing an essay on the subject and I am not sure whether I understood it right
This video made me learn that my left thumb doesn't have the very interesting and exciting double loop whorl and now I'm sad.
Gods way of creating security code
Technically, you can have identical fingerprints because you can't cut a quark in half, but the chance of that happening is quite rare. The universe would most likely kill us with heat death before we manage to find two identical fingerprints.
Edit: Just realized that today's technology for scanning fingerprints isn't too accurate, so it is entirely possible to have two fingerprints that can't be proven to be nonidentical because the most accurate fingerprint-reading machine in the world couldn't find some ridiculously small difference.
Start getting all the finger. points now to start and move foward into plan b in skin and hair. Send me a chart when done. Any phone work to independent tracking.
0:19 surprised nobody has commented that Soldier" 76 from Overwatch is the one on the right
Thx man
2:27 nice pun
Awesome video.👍👍
Finally a video
Wasn't there like three separate cases where the wrong guys were prosecuted because they had the same finger prints?
Wow I rolled my eyes so hard at that last pun :'D
do twins have different fingerprints?
I live for Minute Earth and ASAP Science 🤩
David: flexes on the fact he has a rare fingerprint pattern
Everyone disliked that
Interesting. That's weird. I liked this video.
I downloaded Overwatch on my pc a week or two ago, so I am absolutely addicted. My teacher sent us this video to watch and I was probably the only one who noticed Soldier 76 and I went crazy over it.
I also have a dibble app whorl on my left thumb and I just checked right know!!!!
I have a rare loop on my left thumb, Just like you David
Dude there’s a 5% chance of getting an arch, you got an arch AND a double loop
Hey, I checked my fingers and I also have the double loop whorl on my left thumb!
I was curious on how the birthday paradox works out with those numbers.
tldr there is almost certainly 2 people with the same forks/dead-ends, but almost certainly no two people with the same fingerprints.
Unfortunately, the computation for the exact value is ridiculous (trying to do the factorial of 2 x 10^26 is just outrageous), so I had to go with an approximation.
For n persons and d unique fingerprints, p(n,d) ~= 1 - e^(-n^2 / 2d)
The population of earth is around 7.5 x 10^9
If we use the simplification of forks/dead-ends, then d = 2^50.
That gives p(n,d) ~= 1-e^(-(7.5*10^9)^2 / (2 * 2^50)) = 1.0
(According to WolframAlpha)
But, if we use the actual approximation, then d = 2 * 10^36
p(n,d) ~= 1-e^(-(7.5*10^9)^2 / (2 * 2 *10^36)) = 1.40625... × 10^-17
...which is basically 0. Huzzah!
We don't even need to calculate to know you messed up the math in your first model.
There's no way in hell two people have an identical ordered list of 50 binary values. I see you alluding to the birthday problem, and likely trying to avoid your own bias.
But think it through again. Can you see how the value of the exponential expressions varies with respect to as n/d?
Both probabilities are tiny
I have the double loop whorl on both of my thumbs :)
that PUN AT THE END tho xD
I appreciate the bad pun at the end. I had an excess of groans and am now free of excess groans. Thanks for sharing.
I have a duble loop whirl on my right thumb print.
My right index finger has that rare double thing and my left index finger probably has some super rare finger print because I can't find it anywhere on the internet. It looks like a spiked hill with an upside down loop on top of it. And there is a double triangle (shaped like "M"). It's giving off Van Gogh vibes.
When u get a cut on ur finger and it heals will ur fingerprint change?
hey cool, i've got a double loop whorl too on my right thumb "spinning" in the other direction than the one depicted in the video.
Tongue prints are the same too!
not the same at allm they form completely differently. they are only equally unique
Surely there's a really, really small chance that someone else has had the exact same finger print
They might've lived in a time before we started using fingerprints for identification. That's a thing too: even if someone with ur exact fingerprint existed, they most likely, I can almost say certainly, did/will not live in the same time as you do, as in you will die before that person will have been born, or the other way around.
finally a legit answered to the question we all asked as toddlers (if you didn't it's ok)
"For Saks and Koehler, however, no probability of duplication is small enough to warrant an opinion that DNA or anything else is unique. Thus, they reject the reasoning that a “probability of two individuals having the same fingerprint is one out of 1 • 10^60 . . . is so small as to exclude the possibility of any two individuals having the same fingerprints.”[30] They are correct, but only in the trivial sense that every event with a nonzero probability is a “possibility.” P = 10^-60 is supposed to be the probability that two randomly selected people will have matching fingerprints. Although I doubt the accuracy of the estimated match probability, [31] the allegedly “faulty logic” [32]-the move from P = 10^-60 for the probability of a match to a randomly selected pair to zero for the probability of a match for all possible pairs-is defensible. Suppose that the world’s population (N) is seven billion. The number of distinct pairs of people is N(N - 1)/2, which is on the order of 10^19. Even for this many comparisons, when each has only a probability of 10^-60 of being the same, the chance of one or more identical fingerprints in the world’s population is about 10^-41.[33] Technically, this probability is greater than zero, but that mathematical truism hardly makes it fallacious to exclude as totally unrealistic the thought of a matching fingerprint from someone else. It is not a fallacy to infer uniqueness (both specific and general) when the match probability P is immensely smaller than the reciprocal of the size of a population of objects, every one of whose members has the small probability P of matching. Thus, the problem with using probability theory to demonstrate uniqueness is not that the probability of duplication always exceeds zero. The difference might be too small to matter. Such demonstrations are generally unconvincing because it is so hard to establish that the models are sufficiently realistic and accurate to trust the computed probabilities. But sometimes probabilities are negligible. Just think about the chance that you would suffocate because all the nearby molecules of oxygen in the room would happen to move to the other half of the room. A few simple assumptions and a bit of statistical mechanics demonstrate that the possibility need not worry us."
source: Kaye, David H., Probability, Individualization, and Uniqueness in Forensic Science Evidence: Listening to the Academies (June 26, 2009). Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 1163-1185, Summer 2010. Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=1261970