found this to be a waste of time, after 40 minutes i felt i could be certain this was just complete speculation on something genetics and neuroscience could answer with certainty, although the value of the answer would even then be questionable.
@gbiota1 well, thats your problem, this isn't meant to be educational, this isn't meant to be science. This is a round table discussion, a meeting of mind and mingling of spontaneous idea's and views on a specific subject.
For me and many people, that has as much value as a scientific presentation.
In the past, philosophers were the ones frontiering science, now its the scientists philosophizing, sharing visions, idea's and ways of thinking, this is just as valuable in progressing science.
Mathematics allows us to truthfully observe what we can't see physically, which is beautiful! The same felling of beauty that someone would feel being given sight after living blind for so long!
If you start snapping batches of 6 first you have 2 snaps. Then another snap for each bach of 6, that`s 3. So now you have 6 batches of 3 you have to snap each 2 times and that`s 2x6=12. So the total number of snaps is 2+3+12=17
Wierd, huh? But the wierdest part is that all the squares are perfectly snapped.And you have beauty with the same number of snaps that you have uglyness (the first solution with the snapping the squares one by one).
Anyway that is not the only solution because if first you snap the squares in batches of 3 you have 5 snaps. Then each one 2 times, that`s 5x2=10. The total number of snaps is 5+10=15 (if you start snapping in batches of 3). And you have beauty. All the squares are perfectly snapped.
Small error here. You have 6 batches of 3 after 5 snaps so 6x2= 12 + 5 = 17. Now if you really want a way out of this one we need to get more creative. Lets say the bar is arranged 2x9. We make 9 batches of 2 with 8 snaps. Now we stack the 2's 2 deep so that we have 4 stacks of 2 2's and one left over. Im pretty sure anyone could make a clean snap of the 2 2's into 4 so, 8 + 4 (for the stacks) + 1 (the leftover) = 13. If you take this new rule to its conclusion you could do it in 5. Maybe less?
At 0:54:00 How many times you have to snap a chocolate that has 18 sqares so you can separate all the squares? They say 17 times because you have always a piece left at the end.And that there is beauty in that.I think not. Because if you snap each square one by one, they will not snap perfectly simetric on both sides and you most surely will have little crumbles also.
When you talk of describing the beauty of mathematics and the aha moment. It is the joy you feel when you understand and how so many other things fall into place. The common jigsaw puzzle in one small area you find the key piece. Thank you for submitting the videos incredible.
found this to be a waste of time, after 40 minutes i felt i could be certain this was just complete speculation on something genetics and neuroscience could answer with certainty, although the value of the answer would even then be questionable.
gbiota1 10 months ago
@gbiota1 well, thats your problem, this isn't meant to be educational, this isn't meant to be science. This is a round table discussion, a meeting of mind and mingling of spontaneous idea's and views on a specific subject.
For me and many people, that has as much value as a scientific presentation.
In the past, philosophers were the ones frontiering science, now its the scientists philosophizing, sharing visions, idea's and ways of thinking, this is just as valuable in progressing science.
enlightendbel 10 months ago 2
real power of science is uncompromised search for truth
TimeEinstein 1 year ago
Why must humans always relate absolute truths to stupid human perceptions?
Also, I feel sorry for Brian Greene here lol. No disrespect, but the others aren't even on his level.
jmbishop511 1 year ago
pointless
alquiora 1 year ago
LIGHTING!! Didn't Newton say, "Let there be light!"?
mabell01 1 year ago
Mathematics allows us to truthfully observe what we can't see physically, which is beautiful! The same felling of beauty that someone would feel being given sight after living blind for so long!
davedefran 1 year ago
If you start snapping batches of 6 first you have 2 snaps. Then another snap for each bach of 6, that`s 3. So now you have 6 batches of 3 you have to snap each 2 times and that`s 2x6=12. So the total number of snaps is 2+3+12=17
Wierd, huh? But the wierdest part is that all the squares are perfectly snapped.And you have beauty with the same number of snaps that you have uglyness (the first solution with the snapping the squares one by one).
alienapestar 1 year ago
Anyway that is not the only solution because if first you snap the squares in batches of 3 you have 5 snaps. Then each one 2 times, that`s 5x2=10. The total number of snaps is 5+10=15 (if you start snapping in batches of 3). And you have beauty. All the squares are perfectly snapped.
alienapestar 1 year ago
Small error here. You have 6 batches of 3 after 5 snaps so 6x2= 12 + 5 = 17. Now if you really want a way out of this one we need to get more creative. Lets say the bar is arranged 2x9. We make 9 batches of 2 with 8 snaps. Now we stack the 2's 2 deep so that we have 4 stacks of 2 2's and one left over. Im pretty sure anyone could make a clean snap of the 2 2's into 4 so, 8 + 4 (for the stacks) + 1 (the leftover) = 13. If you take this new rule to its conclusion you could do it in 5. Maybe less?
kleinbottled79 1 year ago
At 0:54:00 How many times you have to snap a chocolate that has 18 sqares so you can separate all the squares? They say 17 times because you have always a piece left at the end.And that there is beauty in that.I think not. Because if you snap each square one by one, they will not snap perfectly simetric on both sides and you most surely will have little crumbles also.
alienapestar 1 year ago
This is so much fun.
melese1988 2 years ago 7
Gostaria que fosse disponibilizada a legenda - se possível em Língua Portuguesa - do vídeo "Historical Capitalism: Money and Imagination.
Grata,
Professora Marta Diogo
marthadiogo 2 years ago
When you talk of describing the beauty of mathematics and the aha moment. It is the joy you feel when you understand and how so many other things fall into place. The common jigsaw puzzle in one small area you find the key piece. Thank you for submitting the videos incredible.
TheGoldenGranny 2 years ago
This was an interesting follow up to the last discussion ..
2bsirius 2 years ago
And also nice to see Brian Greene again, havent seen him since he talked on TED, about string theorry :)
thelemur 2 years ago
ahh, most interesting discussions in this session :) Especially about the simplicity of einstein vs newton :)
thelemur 2 years ago