Ramanujan and Partitions (extra footage)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 апр 2016
- Main video: • Partitions - Numberphile
Pi with Pies: • Calculating Pi with Re...
More James Grime: bit.ly/grimevideos
NUMBERPHILE
Website: www.numberphile.com/
Numberphile on Facebook: / numberphile
Numberphile tweets: / numberphile
Numberphile is supported by the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI): bit.ly/MSRINumberphile
Videos by Brady Haran
Support us on Patreon: / numberphile
Brady's videos subreddit: / bradyharan
A run-down of Brady's channels: www.bradyharan.com
Sign up for (occasional) emails: eepurl.com/YdjL9
"It is through logic that we prove, but through intuition that we discover."
-Henri Poincaré
"Then where would we be? In a humanities department." James Grime is an absolute savage XD
1:17 "Without proof, it's just opinion"
*Triggered*
"In the humanities department"
Shots fired XD
+888SpinR HAHAHA. Brilliant.
like Mozart, died so young yet achieved so much.
"a humanities department, that's where we'd be!" - this quote will be on my gravestone. no explanation, but people will know
>in a humanities department
zing!
Hahahh, I can't breathe
+Colin Rice Savage.
From what I've heard, Ramanujan's formula for the partition function is insane and uses transcendental numbers and all kinds of other super-advanced math, and no one but him in the world could have come up with it. So how about a video explaining some of that formula?
I miss James! It's so lovely to see him on Numberphile again. More vids working together, please! :D
Don't be too hard on Hardy for a lot of reasons. If it weren't for G. H. Hardy, and his mathematical inclinations, it is most likely S. Ramanujan would have remained obscure in India, which would be unfortunate. The "cool identities" style of mathematics was passing out of favor at the time, and Hardy was unusual among mathematicians of high reputation in appreciating and cultivating them. One of the things Hardy said about how he decided the letter he got was worth considering is that charlatans who could create unknown, interesting and plausible identities must be rarer than talented mathematicians. But Hardy was the type that would have known if these identities were unknown, and whether they were believable or obvious. Hardy said he took the trouble to prove a few of the identities that were along the lines of things he himself had done, and succeeded with difficultly. How could a pretender know that they were right, and difficult?
I have read some about G. H. Hardy (who was a mathematical star of his time), and he did not care to slog through to the very end of proofs (where things get routine and boring), if avoidable, or much less than that, if avoidable. He would involved himself with a stupendously industrious and talented collaborator who didn't mind, but rather appreciated what Hardy could do. Once Hardy had the insights that got Hardy to the point where he thought another mathematician could carry on, that was enough. I think Hardy saw in Ramamujan some one who operated at the magical level Hardy strived to operate, so once he saw Ramanujan was the real thing, he was happy to become his advocate, but not the drudge to find the proofs. I doubt that Hardy cared personally that Ramanujan didn't have proofs, only that he didn't have enough proof and might therefore go wrong. No journal, of course, would publish any such thing, but who cares?
S. Ramanujan performed daily rituals to a particular female Hindu deity who as a result, he claimed, delivered mathematical treasures to him in the night to be written out during the waking hours. Ramanujan was lucky to have found Hardy, and so been able to do only mathematics, because there were not many like Hardy. Hardy was still luckier to have found Ramanujan, while it lasted. Hardy was an evangelizing atheist (and open atheism was frowned upon in his era) who saw magic in mathematics. I am sure there was no greater joy to that atheist than to have been the witness to what was to him real magic.
#toohardonhardy
"...in the Humanities Department. That's where we'd be." BWAHHHahahaha!!!! Shots fired.
+Numberphile2 you guys actually make me want to study maths. Thanks for all your work and inspiration.
Oops, mine was like the 8th "shots fired" post, lol.
excellent
Don't you mean without proof we would be in the Economics department?
Hey, could you do a movie review of it... just because?
Yesterday was Ramanujan's birthday 22nd December
Aahh I though it would be longer...
What if instead of finding Infinity or know it.
Split it?
I think Ramanujan knew a lot about humanities!
How dare you! In the humanities department... :.D
Why do you guys post half the video in one channel and half in another ? In fact, why even have two channels ?
Always dissing on humanities. Some of us are just more comfortable with gray areas! But it's nice to see both sides of the maths 'equation' presented: intuition and rigor. What I always got in school was the rigor side, which was not inspiring.
+Peg Y I don't think he was dissing humanities, just drawing a distinction to explain the importance of rigour in maths. ^^
*****
Well a completely formal proof is a sequence of statements such that each statement is either a hypothesis or logically follows from the conjunction of every other preceding statement, with the final statement being the statement you're intending to prove as the logical implication from the hypotheses. In practice, if certain logical deductions are obvious in the context, these proofs are shortened but still include the most important non-trivial logical implications.
+kalterarm well people do study what proofs and rigor 'should be'. These people study Logic giving rise to proof theory.
Alas these people are in the humanities, they are philosophers, albeit rigorous ones.
my opinion is that I got a 81 on my cryptography (mth 6250 / cs 4250) final today. I don't need proof that my paper was correct
Is this your real facial color?
I really like Ramanujan, but for some reason I don't want to watch this movie.
dont worry it was better than you think, its on netflix now
this guy claim there is a number, that , if you divide 1 by it, you get 0.
+Nagy Andras Zero divided by one is zero.
dkamm65
re-read what i wrote.
1/x.
at what value of x will that yield zero ?
Show this claim.
1 divided by 1/0 is 0
Stick to the maths and leave the snide comments about the humanities out of the discussion.
Its just joke, why u hafe Tiglatpilesar be mad?
+colincomposer and you stick your opinion somewhere else
I saw the movie and honestly while the book is enjoyable, the movie was bland and kind of ill-formed.