That's exactly the kind of problems you might run straight into, and still not having a clue, - if you just see and enter the algebraic expression from left to right, and don't understand or care how to calculate the expression. This is why infix/algebraic calculators shouldn't be used in education. On my old first generation HP 49G in 'exact' + RPN mode, I do:
3 1/x 'x' STO 7 'y' STO 1 ENTER x y 1 - 2 / * - EVAL x 3 ^ EVAL ^
And correctly get 0. 'RPN' is "do by hand", while "thinking".
Let me rephrase, as I did not have the space to say it the best way I could.
"0^0 = 1" is an axiom, it's effectively 'set' to that value for the sake of being incredibly practical and stopping us from needing to impose special cases on various elegant and vital formulae.
At a higher level it deserves reanalysis and restatement as: The limit of x^x as x tends to 0 is 1. And that is 100% correct.
I find it depressing how we celebrate those who display more physical/sports prowess than the average person, yet ridicule people who are smarter than average.
why can't they stack the red blue and green pixels in 3 layers so that they are true-white when zoomed in on? like if this was a zoomed in side view | | | first line RED Second line Blue third line green (or put red in the back, blue or green up front since they're a bit softer) and it'd be transparent layers so that the colors can penetrate all layers. a tripple layer LCD sandwich
All the first part proves is that abuse of rounding and misuse of a calculator generates bad answers. A calculator is a tool. Use tools correctly and you will get satisfactory results. If you are one of those who use a screwdriver as a chisel, well, I can't say anything positive, can I?
@mainchow10 Im not asking if this video is a fail, im asking why this math is a fail >:I But ill give you an answer: Cuz he actually made a video proving and defending his opinion. I wouldnt question it, and i wish alot of people in this worl wouldnt either. -_-
ALIASING!? Text uses colors to give a soft look to it. When an image loses color quality it is because it uses lossy compression which changes the file a bit to make it a smaller file size. If you use .png(a non lossy compression), your image will not be messed up.
My graphic calculator answers that right ... it uses symbolic algebra, operating over the real domain without rounding the value, it can even solve integrals and other stuff with maximum precision, rounding the final value only if requested by the user.
However when tracing a graphic aliasing problems might occur, as there is a discrete number of points on the screen while the graphic has an infinite one :]
Nice vid, the title only describes half of it though...
@ogatobranco Tell your calculator to integrate "x^(1/2) * e^(-x)" dx, from x=0 to infinity. If it gets the exact answer of sqrt(pi)/2, then I tip my hat.
Nope... can't give sqrt(pi)/2 .. it shows the integration unsolved showing sqrt(x)*e^(-x) in the inside with x 0 to infinity ... if I force it to compare the integration with sqrt(pi)/2 using an equality it shows as being false :P lol, my calc in wrong indeed when forcing approximation, the result differs at 13th decimal digit :P
Funny though ... it can solve integration of -1/2*e^(-i*x)-e^(i*x)/2 for x from -inf to inf with -sin(x) as result :D
google got it right if you want to check go to google and at the end of the url put /webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1&nord=1#hl=en&sugexp=gsihc&xhr=t&q=(1-(1/3)*((7-1)/2))%5E((1/3)%5E3)&cp=29&qe=KDEtKDEvMykqKCg3LTEpLzIpKV4oKDEvMyleMyk&qesig=lG_gEgFk4dxNAzrc__Jpvw&pkc=AFgZ2tkjrzDV
QBasic gave .2500000000000001 on double precision floating point. It gave me an error on single precision floating point. For Windows calculator and Google calculator I had to replace the x's and y's myself and they both gave zero.
OK, so you've got integer aliasing problems otherwise known as interference with the base sample rate. The Moiré. A big problem with audio.
One of my favourite ideas which goes hand in hand with this is the relationship between the number of digits and the depth of the base, and the collapse of the relationship once you reach either infinite base-depth or infinite word length.
There is a thing called vector computing. You're rasterising vectors. Then there's vector interference. mm.
Obviously you have an old calculator, that can't procces a float correctly and the problem might be with your calculatr algorythm to calculate the 27th root of 0
Shanon's sampling theorem - Sample at a rate twice more than the maximum frequency in the signal - Or Anti Alias - remove frequency in the signal such that max frequency remaining in the signal is twice more than what your device can show...
ALL waht you are saying is true but you're forgetting something Math is made by peoples years and years ago so blame your self that you didn't thought of that dumbass
@vleesevlons lol, whatever you say man... look it up though, blacks have an average IQ of 85. They actually had to lower the minimum IQ in order for you not to be mentally retarded because of black people. Its not racist, its just statistics and facts, so don't go playing' the race card, OK?
nerd.i mean i myself am REALLY smart.and yes imafirenmahlazor123, u copied bill nye the science guy. plus the introduction looks like it was copied by mythbusters.
Nate, your use of the words "Your calculator is wrong..." is annoying and ambiguous. Do you mean to tell the mfgr's/programmers that THEIR calculators are wrong, or are you telling the viewers that OUR calculators are wrong? A bit presumptuous not knowing what kind of calculators we have. For instance, my Casio CFX-9850GB+, (and yes, I know about the famous algebraic OOO bug it has...) did get the answer on this one exactly right. I'm sure it's not the only one, either. Just saying.
What in the holy fuck is wrong with you during the graphing part. You don't have sound effects, SO JUST DONT USE SOUND EFFECTS. You tell us "you can think", so why don't you take your own advice. Every time you go "doop doop durp durp" over your own video, the viewer CAN'T hear what you're saying, the content. Nobody is watching this for your "super rad" sound effects, they're trying to listen to you. You're actively trying to make sure nobody can hear you, and that people click stop.
stupid calculators, how the hell do you expect to take over the world? Oh and another thing. When I play COD (black ops) I get a kill death ratio of 12/0 while my buddy gets a KD of 12/1 who's record is better and why? Please only prove your answer using math.
Awesome! I'm just a nerd mathmatics girl who actually joined the math club at my middle school. I love all videos to do with math. My favorite teacher is my math teacher. His daughter is a close friend. My world revovles around math. This shows why I always do long division and old school multiplication. Your brain is much more trustworthy. I <3 Math!
this'll sound mental but i have to ask: wanted formula for working out combinations. eg - 10 nodes - how many different unique links exist there if each node is joined to each other node once? i was told the formula is just multiply it by itself, so that'd be 100 in that case. but the answer is actually 45.
do u know what the right formula is?
it's like what i got told, but then 1/2ed & -5. but that's not it exactly cause it'll be out by 1 or 0.5 as soon as the 10 is changed to another number
Always thought it occured only in conversion from analog to digital, and more so when sampling rates aren't high enough, or is that just quantization? Never completely understood the concept of aliasing (not even in audio), although I got a pretty good grasp on the Nyquist theorum.
Hey, I just wanted to say I really liked this. I'm a graphic designer, so I already knew what Anti Aliasing was, I just never knew the math be hind it, and how it worked. Nor why they ever did the coloring thing.
Though these days with rounded pixels and even higher res screens it's becoming alot less impotent, it's still interesting!
Hey, I just wanted to say I really liked this. I'm a graphic designer, so I already knew what Anti Aliasing was, I just never knew the math be hind it, and how it worked. Nor why they ever did the coloring thing.
Though these days with rounded pixels and even higher res screens it's becoming alot less impotent, it's still interesting!
6:12 "your calculator cannot ever do that" (< think). Oh no? *unleashes very angry strong AI graphing calculator that shoot's all the pixels it got wrong (which are a hell lot)*
Is it correctly understood that the Color anti-aliasing uses the same idea as the Lanczos anti-aliasing, just taking into account the position of RGB dots in a screen?
"But to say that int is integer arithmetic with bounds and overflow conditions is to say that it is not integer arithmetic. Similarly, to say that float is real arithmetic, with approximation errors, is to say that it is not real arithmetic." - Bruce Mills
It may be interesting to know that the Firefox calculator plugin "Status-bar Scientific Calculator" actually produces the correct result. I tried entering (1-(1/3)*((7-1)/2))^((1/3)^3) and returns 0 just fine.
huh......thats pretty cool! AND I AM NOT OBBSESED WITH YOUTUBE I JUST FOUND THiS INTERESTING!!!!!!! i bet i know something u dont! the square route of pi is 1.17793x!
my TI-89 was able to perform the calculation correctly without any problem (of course, the TI-89 is also advanced enough to perform symbolic algebra and calculus--symbolic integration and differentiation--the only thing it can't seem to do is, although it can take limits at infinity and of infinity, it doesn't seem to be able to resolve simple infinite series...that is, it can't find the sum of a converging series (even the simplest of ones))
Not all calculators are wrong. I just now typed that problem into my calculator, by the way it is a TI - 30X 2S (the 2 is supposed to be in roman numerals but I don't know how to type them), and it came out with 0 as the answer, not whatever you got.
hey hey hey dude i think ive found a bug in my casio fx-115ms calculator
if i do 13965432109 - 4079879050 i get an answer 9885553050 but the correct answer is 9885553059 which i have verified with pen \ paper and the caclulator in windows and an online calculator.
@StarSeeker5000 Looool xD And how the hell did you come up with that substraction? Were you just randomly playing around with your calculator one day -because you have no friends- and decided to check the answers it gave you? I mean... WTF?!
@GolldLining nope, I was helping my Nephew learn about maths using the khanacademy youtube channel. I wanted to stretch his knowledge and discovered the problem.
Anyway, like I said before if you got nothing to contribute then why are you even here?
guys, you are really not gettin the point. he doesnt wanne show you, that calculater are wrong, he just tells you, that calculater are machines and are restricted. so you shouldnt always trust computers, but you should think about your answers and see, if there have to be wrong. then you can change you options or better calculate it with your hand.
Lol it's true! it's incredibly boring and i already know what you are talking about... but i dont know if its because of sound effect or whatever i cant stop watching :)
They are both the result of quantization no matter how you look at it. Pixels can only physically exist at a finite number of locations in space, the same way numbers on a computer can only represent a finite number of points on the number line. Now while floating-point arithmetic can change the nature of the error (points on the number line are no longer on a regularly spaced grid), the error still persists, just in a different form: round-off error.
Aliasing will be a problem any time you try to represent data on a regularly spaced sampling grid (be it one-dimensional or two-dimensional). That's why the aliasing on the plot of a function of one-variable, such as can be graphed on a graphics calculator, is still called "aliasing", just the same as it is in the two-dimensional plane.
Now granted: round-off error of floating point numbers is not exactly the same thing as aliasing, but it still fits into the same general category of "errors a machine can make by virtue of it being finite" and that's why I included it. You would not be able to visually "see" floating point arithmetic errors though--since they are by design very tiny relative to the size of the number itself.
aliasing really isn't a problem with round off error... its best to look at the problem after using a transform into the frequency domain, like a fourier transform.
otherwise the motivation for using a lanczos filter (a windowed sinc filter) only seems like a good guess rather than what it is, an approximation of a low (frequency) pass filter.
these errors (quantization - amplitude) and (aliasing - time) are on different axes.
Yes, that is correct. The concept of a "repeating decimal" was invented to explain what a theoretical machine would do if it had an infinite amount of time and storage capacity, but of course no real computer can keep printing out digits forever.
What can be proven however, is that any arithmetic computation that would result in a theoretical computer printing out "0.333..." with 3's after the decimal point repeating forever, could only have been the number 1/3. Any other number would cause the computation to either stop or to at some point spit out a digit other than "3".
( The way you would prove this, since you can't actually run a computation forever, is to show that the computation ends up in exactly the same state as some state it was in previously, and hence will do exactly the same thing over and over again )
I can't guarantee results for any other model of calculator than my own (a TI-85). If you're creative enough, I'm sure you can find a way to do it on your calculator too. If nothing else, you could look up which IEEE floating point standard it is using (my guess would be 32 bit) and that information could be used to tell which floating-point numbers it will fail on. The "newness" of the model of calculator doesn't fundamentally change anything. It just pushes the error back a few more digits.
It annoys the hell out of me that I can't find my TI-84 silver edition so that I can prove she can do it! I feel like you're attacking me by critizising my calculator... Why not just have a go at my mother when you're at it?!
That's exactly the kind of problems you might run straight into, and still not having a clue, - if you just see and enter the algebraic expression from left to right, and don't understand or care how to calculate the expression. This is why infix/algebraic calculators shouldn't be used in education. On my old first generation HP 49G in 'exact' + RPN mode, I do:
3 1/x 'x' STO 7 'y' STO 1 ENTER x y 1 - 2 / * - EVAL x 3 ^ EVAL ^
And correctly get 0. 'RPN' is "do by hand", while "thinking".
Vermiliontea 3 days ago
I lost it at 0:35
DinoDyl 1 week ago
hahaha my calculator worked!
GrizzlyBombify 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, you are wrong.
mmmimi50 2 months ago
Thumbs up if you stopped watching at 6:35
keoni29 3 months ago
any1 aware that he typed x^3 in the calculator?
b2639 3 months ago
my Sharp EL-W516 writeview calculator gave me the right answer :(
260830107 4 months ago
Your calculator is wrong. Mine, on the other hand, has quite correctly responded to my input.
Including the graphical functions too, actually.
Understanding what display parameters to use with the intent of most closely rendering a desired function is the human's responsibility.
It is just a tool that mirrors our own abilities, if anything is wrong it is we..
Oh, and 0^0 = 1.
alessan 4 months ago 2
@alessan 0^0 is undefined.
austin777136 3 weeks ago
@austin777136
Let me rephrase, as I did not have the space to say it the best way I could.
"0^0 = 1" is an axiom, it's effectively 'set' to that value for the sake of being incredibly practical and stopping us from needing to impose special cases on various elegant and vital formulae.
At a higher level it deserves reanalysis and restatement as: The limit of x^x as x tends to 0 is 1. And that is 100% correct.
alessan 3 weeks ago
I typed that in my calculator and it said it was right. :X
IMakeOrWatchVideos 4 months ago
Re: the "NERRRRD!" comments:
I find it depressing how we celebrate those who display more physical/sports prowess than the average person, yet ridicule people who are smarter than average.
What a sad society.
AvatarZ 4 months ago
you're a nerd!
Vayno8 4 months ago
No, my calculator is right.
freezeme360 5 months ago
my calculator gave me zero for that first thing, you should just get a better calculator
TMOMFXD 5 months ago
why can't they stack the red blue and green pixels in 3 layers so that they are true-white when zoomed in on? like if this was a zoomed in side view | | | first line RED Second line Blue third line green (or put red in the back, blue or green up front since they're a bit softer) and it'd be transparent layers so that the colors can penetrate all layers. a tripple layer LCD sandwich
Shakeitupyes 5 months ago
Cheesy intro, but anyone who can explain roundoff errors and so on that well, gets a "Like" from me!
DrunkenUFOPilot 5 months ago
Wolfram Mathematica got it right, but then again, it is Mathematica
bleem313 5 months ago
"because your calculator is using binary, and we're using decimal"
the calculator is using insufficent tools
if it is wrong it is ultimately human error
kionay 5 months ago
chuck norris's calculator is always right, no matter what the answer
KanyeTroll 5 months ago
My TI-34 MultiView (non-graphing calculator & costs ≈ 20) got exactly 0 ☺
icomeforREDRUM 5 months ago
You get the right answer when you use a TI89 :P
josephfeigenbaum 6 months ago
Rip of of Bill Nye the science Guy
OuTLaWsWarrior 6 months ago
All the first part proves is that abuse of rounding and misuse of a calculator generates bad answers. A calculator is a tool. Use tools correctly and you will get satisfactory results. If you are one of those who use a screwdriver as a chisel, well, I can't say anything positive, can I?
MrBubosibiricus 6 months ago
wtf weird noices?
and yes i ate some mushrooms
solidmage 6 months ago
Let's see. *Types 9+7* *Answer = 16*.
This video is a failure
mainchow10 7 months ago
@mainchow10 How? Symple math is not a fail.
BillyTheMilkMan 6 months ago
@BillyTheMilkMan They told us not to trust our calculator. I'm pretty sure 9+7=16.
mainchow10 6 months ago
@mainchow10 Yea, so how is it a fail?! D:
BillyTheMilkMan 6 months ago
@BillyTheMilkMan I already gave you a reason. Now YOU tell me. Why is this not a fail?
mainchow10 6 months ago
@mainchow10 Im not asking if this video is a fail, im asking why this math is a fail >:I But ill give you an answer: Cuz he actually made a video proving and defending his opinion. I wouldnt question it, and i wish alot of people in this worl wouldnt either. -_-
BillyTheMilkMan 6 months ago
HIS VOICE SCARES ME...
w0rdthat 7 months ago
ALIASING!? Text uses colors to give a soft look to it. When an image loses color quality it is because it uses lossy compression which changes the file a bit to make it a smaller file size. If you use .png(a non lossy compression), your image will not be messed up.
TheBasicStamp 7 months ago
My graphic calculator answers that right ... it uses symbolic algebra, operating over the real domain without rounding the value, it can even solve integrals and other stuff with maximum precision, rounding the final value only if requested by the user.
However when tracing a graphic aliasing problems might occur, as there is a discrete number of points on the screen while the graphic has an infinite one :]
Nice vid, the title only describes half of it though...
ogatobranco 7 months ago
@ogatobranco Tell your calculator to integrate "x^(1/2) * e^(-x)" dx, from x=0 to infinity. If it gets the exact answer of sqrt(pi)/2, then I tip my hat.
scoreunder 7 months ago
@scoreunder,
Nope... can't give sqrt(pi)/2 .. it shows the integration unsolved showing sqrt(x)*e^(-x) in the inside with x 0 to infinity ... if I force it to compare the integration with sqrt(pi)/2 using an equality it shows as being false :P lol, my calc in wrong indeed when forcing approximation, the result differs at 13th decimal digit :P
Funny though ... it can solve integration of -1/2*e^(-i*x)-e^(i*x)/2 for x from -inf to inf with -sin(x) as result :D
ogatobranco 7 months ago
Well, My calculator wasn't wrong. I think you need to get a new one ;)
KieranY5 7 months ago
Mathematica got zero too!
forallpurposesonly 7 months ago
My TI-NSpire gives 0.
rndmshtaccount 8 months ago
google got it right if you want to check go to google and at the end of the url put /webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1&nord=1#hl=en&sugexp=gsihc&xhr=t&q=(1-(1/3)*((7-1)/2))%5E((1/3)%5E3)&cp=29&qe=KDEtKDEvMykqKCg3LTEpLzIpKV4oKDEvMyleMyk&qesig=lG_gEgFk4dxNAzrc__Jpvw&pkc=AFgZ2tkjrzDV
Evanisawesome54321 8 months ago
QBasic gave .2500000000000001 on double precision floating point. It gave me an error on single precision floating point. For Windows calculator and Google calculator I had to replace the x's and y's myself and they both gave zero.
TaiFerret 8 months ago
fuck I have never been so bored in my life
Blashada 8 months ago
Vector graphics here, enjoy your aliasing.
HWGuyEG 8 months ago
My calculator is right! I got zero!
forallpurposesonly 8 months ago
Comment removed
xng14 9 months ago
my TI-89 gave me 0
TAPriceCTR 9 months ago
Comment removed
TAPriceCTR 9 months ago
Is he trying to copy Bill Nye the Science Guy with his intro?
dstrbdxxxprncess 9 months ago
The pixel part, for some reason, makes me SICK!
adam5metcalfe 9 months ago
NATE THE MATHEMATICS GUY
NATE
NATE
NATE
NATE
NATE
NATE
ifhgsfj 10 months ago 52
i liked it except for the ear rapage
Evanisawesome54321 10 months ago
Well, the basic rules of math dictates that you should always start by doing the ^ signs, so your calculations is completely useless...
Beaverman20 10 months ago
@Beaverman20 Pemdas boy, pemdas
gummyfail 10 months ago
@gummyfail i'm gonna look that up now... so thank you, i learned something new :D
Beaverman20 10 months ago
OK, so you've got integer aliasing problems otherwise known as interference with the base sample rate. The Moiré. A big problem with audio.
One of my favourite ideas which goes hand in hand with this is the relationship between the number of digits and the depth of the base, and the collapse of the relationship once you reach either infinite base-depth or infinite word length.
There is a thing called vector computing. You're rasterising vectors. Then there's vector interference. mm.
bishopdante 10 months ago
Obviously you have an old calculator, that can't procces a float correctly and the problem might be with your calculatr algorythm to calculate the 27th root of 0
conectado2 10 months ago
FAIL. I got zero on my MK-85 :D
ZXRulezzz 10 months ago
u fuckn nerd
kiwi1ful 11 months ago
its because your calculator is more exact than you are. of course you get .303... by hand you would obviously get zero.
BankruptMonopoly 11 months ago
i spit on my screen
LordoftheJamesClan 11 months ago
Well I stopped watching at roughly 6:41
snowourder 11 months ago
My calculator isn't wrong, yours is. I use wolfram alpha.
TheBoxXITG 11 months ago
thats because it rounded the 1/3
mmangames 11 months ago
nothing bad has ever happened *BEEEEEP*
BeaSk8r117 11 months ago
Shanon's sampling theorem - Sample at a rate twice more than the maximum frequency in the signal - Or Anti Alias - remove frequency in the signal such that max frequency remaining in the signal is twice more than what your device can show...
amiyaiitkgp 1 year ago
zeeeooouuup! xD
Deymosician 1 year ago
XD
ALL waht you are saying is true but you're forgetting something Math is made by peoples years and years ago so blame your self that you didn't thought of that dumbass
vleesevlons 1 year ago
@vleesevlons you sound black... and by that i mean you sound like you have the I.Q of a chimp...
sprjcube 1 year ago
@sprjcube Racist it's a fact i am fucking smarter than you so fuck you bitch you IQ is below 60 bitch mine is 134
vleesevlons 1 year ago
@vleesevlons lol, whatever you say man... look it up though, blacks have an average IQ of 85. They actually had to lower the minimum IQ in order for you not to be mentally retarded because of black people. Its not racist, its just statistics and facts, so don't go playing' the race card, OK?
sprjcube 11 months ago
My calculator isn't wrong. I feel very sorry that yours is. However, if this comes as any comfort to you, the Casio fx-85ES is quite affordable.
migacz 1 year ago
thats a nerdy video much
TheJokersTwo 1 year ago
nerd.i mean i myself am REALLY smart.and yes imafirenmahlazor123, u copied bill nye the science guy. plus the introduction looks like it was copied by mythbusters.
braulmon 1 year ago 19
Nate, your use of the words "Your calculator is wrong..." is annoying and ambiguous. Do you mean to tell the mfgr's/programmers that THEIR calculators are wrong, or are you telling the viewers that OUR calculators are wrong? A bit presumptuous not knowing what kind of calculators we have. For instance, my Casio CFX-9850GB+, (and yes, I know about the famous algebraic OOO bug it has...) did get the answer on this one exactly right. I'm sure it's not the only one, either. Just saying.
HalluxSinister 1 year ago
Comment removed
HalluxSinister 1 year ago
it's funny because my calculator gets it right!
EtagAwesome 1 year ago
u copyed bill nye the science guy
imafirenmahlazor123 1 year ago
uhhhhh
MonoFUNKYDanny 1 year ago
i got zero on my ti-84
7143travis 1 year ago
What in the holy fuck is wrong with you during the graphing part. You don't have sound effects, SO JUST DONT USE SOUND EFFECTS. You tell us "you can think", so why don't you take your own advice. Every time you go "doop doop durp durp" over your own video, the viewer CAN'T hear what you're saying, the content. Nobody is watching this for your "super rad" sound effects, they're trying to listen to you. You're actively trying to make sure nobody can hear you, and that people click stop.
TheRoomy 1 year ago
stupid calculators, how the hell do you expect to take over the world? Oh and another thing. When I play COD (black ops) I get a kill death ratio of 12/0 while my buddy gets a KD of 12/1 who's record is better and why? Please only prove your answer using math.
RobertStephenLopez 1 year ago
stupid calculators, how the hell do you expect to take over the world?
RobertStephenLopez 1 year ago
sorry, but im re-installing everything on my gf's comp....sigh....you are interesting and exciting compared to ......
00Billy 1 year ago
if only you've had some higher quality video as i cant see all of it =S
Iskander299 1 year ago
Sorry bro, but Mathematica didn't get it wrong.
sidchuownz 1 year ago
my calculator showed the characters WTF
CHRISTMASBASTARD 1 year ago
waste of time.
1001014 1 year ago
thats off bill nye?!?!
crazyman3561 1 year ago
Awesome! I'm just a nerd mathmatics girl who actually joined the math club at my middle school. I love all videos to do with math. My favorite teacher is my math teacher. His daughter is a close friend. My world revovles around math. This shows why I always do long division and old school multiplication. Your brain is much more trustworthy. I <3 Math!
daenacarter 1 year ago
my calculator says:
0 - 1 = FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
is it trying to say the f word?
or is it just an overflow error?
1Nk0Rr3kT 1 year ago
I think any new calculators can do this .) BUT I tried to be sure :) casio 991MS can do this
MuF123 1 year ago
Comment removed
Evan3457 1 year ago
06:29 FFFU-!
Gameboygenius 1 year ago
this'll sound mental but i have to ask: wanted formula for working out combinations. eg - 10 nodes - how many different unique links exist there if each node is joined to each other node once? i was told the formula is just multiply it by itself, so that'd be 100 in that case. but the answer is actually 45.
do u know what the right formula is?
it's like what i got told, but then 1/2ed & -5. but that's not it exactly cause it'll be out by 1 or 0.5 as soon as the 10 is changed to another number
randomlaughingman 1 year ago
My calculator (Casio fx-991ES) is right!
IShouldLikeTo 1 year ago
ur doin it wrong
Spectre426 1 year ago
NERDS
xrizi 1 year ago
My ti-83 gave me 0 for that function in the beginning.
disturbed1777 1 year ago
Fail Bill Nye rip off, much?
takishan 1 year ago
Didn't know that calculators had aliasing issues?
Always thought it occured only in conversion from analog to digital, and more so when sampling rates aren't high enough, or is that just quantization? Never completely understood the concept of aliasing (not even in audio), although I got a pretty good grasp on the Nyquist theorum.
Pretty cool vid ^_^
DagGirl 1 year ago
calculator's can't do fractions, this isn't news...
goatgoat 1 year ago
Hey, I just wanted to say I really liked this. I'm a graphic designer, so I already knew what Anti Aliasing was, I just never knew the math be hind it, and how it worked. Nor why they ever did the coloring thing.
Though these days with rounded pixels and even higher res screens it's becoming alot less impotent, it's still interesting!
Hope you can upload some new intresting vidoes!
anotherdefault 1 year ago
Hey, I just wanted to say I really liked this. I'm a graphic designer, so I already knew what Anti Aliasing was, I just never knew the math be hind it, and how it worked. Nor why they ever did the coloring thing.
Though these days with rounded pixels and even higher res screens it's becoming alot less impotent, it's still interesting!
anotherdefault 1 year ago
Your calculator just sucks. I have one that's about 10 years old that can do this right....
kite949372 1 year ago
6:12 "your calculator cannot ever do that" (< think). Oh no? *unleashes very angry strong AI graphing calculator that shoot's all the pixels it got wrong (which are a hell lot)*
Fangornmmc 1 year ago
Is it correctly understood that the Color anti-aliasing uses the same idea as the Lanczos anti-aliasing, just taking into account the position of RGB dots in a screen?
adrianjcc 1 year ago
he is my inspiration. he is the first person who told me i can think
ApplecrispKLC 1 year ago
i got bored after like a minute why am i even watching this
kokoka852 1 year ago
This is incomprehensible dribble. Mathematics is the devil.
SilverStateMan 1 year ago
Stop hacking your calculators!
MIKEDUBOU 1 year ago
i stopped watching this cause its about math only watched to 1:06
xabii22alonsoo 1 year ago
TI-83 Plus gives '0' as a result when the first problem is executed, with as well as without using variables.
maqrux 1 year ago
"But to say that int is integer arithmetic with bounds and overflow conditions is to say that it is not integer arithmetic. Similarly, to say that float is real arithmetic, with approximation errors, is to say that it is not real arithmetic." - Bruce Mills
emptycagecorrode 1 year ago
Now I have to think :(
paroxyzm21 1 year ago
the nates sound they were said from a cave
FluffyJay1 1 year ago
hmm, the sound effects were pretty funny, but the math itself only lasted for about 5 mins, the rest was about computer graphics... lol
BFG12043 1 year ago
why u gottta be insulting my calculator?
SomethinDwnUrPants 1 year ago
It may be interesting to know that the Firefox calculator plugin "Status-bar Scientific Calculator" actually produces the correct result. I tried entering (1-(1/3)*((7-1)/2))^((1/3)^3) and returns 0 just fine.
1313EbutUoy 1 year ago
i don't think your average calculator has artificial intelligence...
spacerock927 1 year ago
huh......thats pretty cool! AND I AM NOT OBBSESED WITH YOUTUBE I JUST FOUND THiS INTERESTING!!!!!!! i bet i know something u dont! the square route of pi is 1.17793x!
RingoGeorgeJohnPaul2 1 year ago
dont like the way you talk, couldnt take it
shmayy 1 year ago
wow... the calculator completely failed at graphing the cosine one lol.
elizze6 1 year ago
Confused?????!!!!!!
coolsims94 1 year ago
"You can do what your calculator can't. THINK!!!" I did not know that. lol
Jorbs3210 1 year ago
my TI-89 was able to perform the calculation correctly without any problem (of course, the TI-89 is also advanced enough to perform symbolic algebra and calculus--symbolic integration and differentiation--the only thing it can't seem to do is, although it can take limits at infinity and of infinity, it doesn't seem to be able to resolve simple infinite series...that is, it can't find the sum of a converging series (even the simplest of ones))
technopagan724 1 year ago
how did you upload over 10 minutes?
iwantcoolname 1 year ago
Not all calculators are wrong. I just now typed that problem into my calculator, by the way it is a TI - 30X 2S (the 2 is supposed to be in roman numerals but I don't know how to type them), and it came out with 0 as the answer, not whatever you got.
red7096 1 year ago
i want you to be my maths teacher :P
toocool2beat 1 year ago
i really dont care
triniverse 1 year ago
hey hey hey dude i think ive found a bug in my casio fx-115ms calculator
if i do 13965432109 - 4079879050 i get an answer 9885553050 but the correct answer is 9885553059 which i have verified with pen \ paper and the caclulator in windows and an online calculator.
now i do not trust my casio at all :(
any ideas?
StarSeeker5000 1 year ago
@StarSeeker5000 Yep, you probably typed it in wrong on your calculator.
GolldLining 1 year ago
@GolldLining What a pointless, stupid reply. Seriously though, if you cant contribute then GTFO.
StarSeeker5000 1 year ago
@StarSeeker5000 Looool xD And how the hell did you come up with that substraction? Were you just randomly playing around with your calculator one day -because you have no friends- and decided to check the answers it gave you? I mean... WTF?!
GolldLining 1 year ago
@GolldLining nope, I was helping my Nephew learn about maths using the khanacademy youtube channel. I wanted to stretch his knowledge and discovered the problem.
Anyway, like I said before if you got nothing to contribute then why are you even here?
StarSeeker5000 1 year ago
my calculator gave me 0.
powoncide 1 year ago
sorry my mistake
karim2195 1 year ago
7-1/2 = 3.5 not 3
karim2195 1 year ago
My ti-89 titanium tells me that your dumb equation is zero.
supergsx 1 year ago
right about calc but your equations is bogus
harrisjplive 1 year ago
guys, you are really not gettin the point. he doesnt wanne show you, that calculater are wrong, he just tells you, that calculater are machines and are restricted. so you shouldnt always trust computers, but you should think about your answers and see, if there have to be wrong. then you can change you options or better calculate it with your hand.
whyismyusernameused 1 year ago
@whyismyusernameused very good answer man.
vs5799 1 year ago
Ti 84 won't do 2a+5=35.
numanuma20 1 year ago
in the first problem you didnt used order of operations
DDandtheking 1 year ago
@math guy, you are idiot, any machine that can calculate has precision, so you are wrong cause you don't admit it.
terroare 1 year ago
I learned quite a bit from this!
themaritimeman 1 year ago 11
booooooooooooooooooooooooooring .... who thinks in this things any way??
arquitician 1 year ago
i sprayed ....uhh.. water... yeah..
on my monitor screen very often =(
joemadly 1 year ago
what command-line calc did you use
traceyrmj2 2 years ago
Ti-83 says 0.
The title is lying.
belliebum12 2 years ago
achualy you just made it funny
GamerBryant64 2 years ago
1- the sound effects were *really* annoying.
2- instead of helping people get accurate graphs, you just show them that the calculator is wrong. Try giving them better calc settings.
snoflake44 2 years ago 20
@snoflake44 No shit Sherlock - the video is called "Your Calculator is Wrong". If you wanted a different video, go watch the video you want.
Srlancelot39 1 year ago
@snoflake44 I think you're missing the point of the video.
Fakenstien 1 year ago
Casio CFX-9850GB agrees with 0
kwukduck 2 years ago
another great hungarian discovery :)
skimygod 2 years ago
Lichtenberg figures are awesome.
36trooper 2 years ago
the TI-84 Plus <8texas Instruments) also gives the right answers :D
UserKD15 2 years ago
lol the clauclator i made gets it right!
ChaoMystero 2 years ago
my calculator did it all right..u just failed
killuarulez 2 years ago
honestly... who gives a shit? lul
jakeismighty 2 years ago
The one who experience aliasing in video fx.
bandit70051 2 years ago
my casio fx85es gives the right answer!
aleximus2007 2 years ago
NERD
playerworldwide 2 years ago
Lol it's true! it's incredibly boring and i already know what you are talking about... but i dont know if its because of sound effect or whatever i cant stop watching :)
Im addicted to yt :)
gennaman2bit 2 years ago
buy a new calculator that can set more deciamls or less
VooDooPkCta 2 years ago
antisemitism!
aerobique 2 years ago
cool video for a mathematician, but the problem of spatial aliasing and finite precision (quantization) in calculators are different.
computer graphic aliasing is a problem of plotting continuous functions onto a spatially discrete plane.
this is unrelated to quantization, i.e. representing a real number as a finite precision binary number.
so basically what im trying to say is that we don't need computer graphics anti aliasing filters because the calculator is wrong.
legion2 2 years ago
They are both the result of quantization no matter how you look at it. Pixels can only physically exist at a finite number of locations in space, the same way numbers on a computer can only represent a finite number of points on the number line. Now while floating-point arithmetic can change the nature of the error (points on the number line are no longer on a regularly spaced grid), the error still persists, just in a different form: round-off error.
TheMathGuy 2 years ago
Aliasing will be a problem any time you try to represent data on a regularly spaced sampling grid (be it one-dimensional or two-dimensional). That's why the aliasing on the plot of a function of one-variable, such as can be graphed on a graphics calculator, is still called "aliasing", just the same as it is in the two-dimensional plane.
TheMathGuy 2 years ago
Now granted: round-off error of floating point numbers is not exactly the same thing as aliasing, but it still fits into the same general category of "errors a machine can make by virtue of it being finite" and that's why I included it. You would not be able to visually "see" floating point arithmetic errors though--since they are by design very tiny relative to the size of the number itself.
TheMathGuy 2 years ago
aliasing really isn't a problem with round off error... its best to look at the problem after using a transform into the frequency domain, like a fourier transform.
otherwise the motivation for using a lanczos filter (a windowed sinc filter) only seems like a good guess rather than what it is, an approximation of a low (frequency) pass filter.
these errors (quantization - amplitude) and (aliasing - time) are on different axes.
legion2 2 years ago
this is a good video, anyways.
legion2 2 years ago
1/3 does not equal 0.333333333333, it might be close but 1/3 cannot be represented decimally, right?
majjinaran2999 2 years ago
@majjinaran2999 if it is .333recurring then yes. sorta like pi not being 3.14159. but that doesnt recur
ImHomeAtLast 2 years ago
Yes, that is correct. The concept of a "repeating decimal" was invented to explain what a theoretical machine would do if it had an infinite amount of time and storage capacity, but of course no real computer can keep printing out digits forever.
TheMathGuy 2 years ago
What can be proven however, is that any arithmetic computation that would result in a theoretical computer printing out "0.333..." with 3's after the decimal point repeating forever, could only have been the number 1/3. Any other number would cause the computation to either stop or to at some point spit out a digit other than "3".
TheMathGuy 2 years ago
( The way you would prove this, since you can't actually run a computation forever, is to show that the computation ends up in exactly the same state as some state it was in previously, and hence will do exactly the same thing over and over again )
TheMathGuy 2 years ago
Yeah, my TI-89 Titanium did work, it's 0
you shouldn't use calculator free from the "cocoa Puffs"
Use Mathlab or >TI-84 or something more new
CorporalShephard 2 years ago
I can't guarantee results for any other model of calculator than my own (a TI-85). If you're creative enough, I'm sure you can find a way to do it on your calculator too. If nothing else, you could look up which IEEE floating point standard it is using (my guess would be 32 bit) and that information could be used to tell which floating-point numbers it will fail on. The "newness" of the model of calculator doesn't fundamentally change anything. It just pushes the error back a few more digits.
TheMathGuy 2 years ago
i turned from a straight a student to a F student over the week!!
awesome949 2 years ago
I got .653 on my computer...
It annoys the hell out of me that I can't find my TI-84 silver edition so that I can prove she can do it! I feel like you're attacking me by critizising my calculator... Why not just have a go at my mother when you're at it?!
eizhowa 2 years ago