this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
625 points (97.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

34310 readers
1808 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
625
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by cll7793 to c/nostupidquestions
 

What concepts or facts do you know from math that is mind blowing, awesome, or simply fascinating?

Here are some I would like to share:

  • Gödel's incompleteness theorems: There are some problems in math so difficult that it can never be solved no matter how much time you put into it.
  • Halting problem: It is impossible to write a program that can figure out whether or not any input program loops forever or finishes running. (Undecidablity)

The Busy Beaver function

Now this is the mind blowing one. What is the largest non-infinite number you know? Graham's Number? TREE(3)? TREE(TREE(3))? This one will beat it easily.

  • The Busy Beaver function produces the fastest growing number that is theoretically possible. These numbers are so large we don't even know if you can compute the function to get the value even with an infinitely powerful PC.
  • In fact, just the mere act of being able to compute the value would mean solving the hardest problems in mathematics.
  • Σ(1) = 1
  • Σ(4) = 13
  • Σ(6) > 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 (10s are stacked on each other)
  • Σ(17) > Graham's Number
  • Σ(27) If you can compute this function the Goldbach conjecture is false.
  • Σ(744) If you can compute this function the Riemann hypothesis is false.

Sources:

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] _pheel_ 163 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There are more ways to arrange a deck of 52 cards than there are atoms on Earth.

52 Factorial

I feel this one is quite well known, but it's still pretty cool.

[–] Nibodhika 80 points 11 months ago (5 children)

An extension of that is that every time you shuffle a deck of cards there's a high probability that that particular arrangement has never been seen in the history of mankind.

[–] billiam0202 31 points 11 months ago (2 children)

With the caveat that it's not the first shuffle of a new deck. Since card decks come out of the factory in the same order, the probability that the first shuffle will result in an order that has been seen before is a little higher than on a deck that has already been shuffled.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Artisian 113 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (22 children)

For the uninitiated, the monty Hall problem is a good one.

Start with 3 closed doors, and an announcer who knows what's behind each. The announcer says that behind 2 of the doors is a goat, and behind the third door is ~~a car~~ student debt relief, but doesn't tell you which door leads to which. They then let you pick a door, and you will get what's behind the door. Before you open it, they open a different door than your choice and reveal a goat. Then the announcer says you are allowed to change your choice.

So should you switch?

The answer turns out to be yes. 2/3rds of the time you are better off switching. But even famous mathematicians didn't believe it at first.

[–] [email protected] 89 points 11 months ago (15 children)

I know the problem is easier to visualize if you increase the number of doors. Let's say you start with 1000 doors, you choose one and the announcer opens 998 other doors with goats. In this way is evident you should switch because unless you were incredibly lucky to pick up the initial door with the prize between 1000, the other door will have it.

[–] Artisian 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I now recall there was a numberphile with exactly that visualisation! It's a clever visual

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago

This is so mind blowing to me, because I get what you're saying logically, but my gut still tells me it's a 50/50 chance.

But I think the reason it is true is because the other person didn't choose the other 998 doors randomly. So if you chose any of the other 998 doors, it would still be between the door you chose and the winner, other than the 1/1000 chance that you chose right at the beginning.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] [email protected] 101 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

Goldbach's Conjecture: Every even natural number > 2 is a sum of 2 prime numbers. Eg: 8=5+3, 20=13+7.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_conjecture

Such a simple construct right? Notice the word "conjecture". The above has been verified till 4x10^18 numbers BUT no one has been able to prove it mathematically till date! It's one of the best known unsolved problems in mathematics.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] mookulator 88 points 11 months ago (9 children)

The four-color theorem is pretty cool.

You can take any map of anything and color it in using only four colors so that no adjacent “countries” are the same color. Often it can be done with three!

Maybe not the most mind blowing but it’s neat.

[–] cll7793 40 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Thanks for the comment! It is cool and also pretty aesthetically pleasing!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blyfh 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

What about a hypothetical country that is shaped like a donut, and the hole is filled with four small countries? One of the countries must have the color of one of its neighbors, no?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (17 children)

I think the four small countries inside would each only have 2 neighbours. So you could take 2 that are diagonal and make them the same colour.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] BourneHavoc 70 points 11 months ago (11 children)

I came here to find some cool, mind-blowing facts about math and have instead confirmed that I'm not smart enough to have my mind blown. I am familiar with some of the words used by others in this thread, but not enough of them to understand, lol.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] betheydocrime 55 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

For me, personally, it's the divisible-by-three check. You know, the little shortcut you can do where you add up the individual digits of a number and if the resulting sum is divisible by three, then so is the original number.

That, to me, is black magic fuckery. Much like everything else in this thread I have no idea how it works, but unlike everything else in this thread it's actually a handy trick that I use semifrequently

[–] [email protected] 41 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

That one’s actually really easy to prove numerically.

Not going to type out a full proof here, but here’s an example.

Let’s look at a two digit number for simplicity. You can write any two digit number as 10*a+b, where a and b are the first and second digits respectively.

E.g. 72 is 10 * 7 + 2. And 10 is just 9+1, so in this case it becomes 72=(9 * 7)+7+2

We know 9 * 7 is divisible by 3 as it’s just 3 * 3 * 7. Then if the number we add on (7 and 2) also sum to a multiple of 3, then we know the entire number is a multiple of 3.

You can then extend that to larger numbers as 100 is 99+1 and 99 is divisible by 3, and so on.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] calexil 51 points 11 months ago (3 children)
[–] SandLight 21 points 11 months ago

3Blue 1Brown actually explains that one in a way that makes it seem less coincidental and black magic. Totally worth a watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0YEaeIClKY

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BodePlotHole 51 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The utility of Laplace transforms in regards to differential systems.

In engineering school you learn to analyze passive DC circuits early on using not much more than ohms law and Thevenin's Theoram. This shit can be taught to elementary schoolers.

Then a little while later, you learn how to do non-finear differential equations to help work complex systems, whether it's electrical, mechanical, thermal, hydrolic, etc. This shit is no walk in the park.

Then Laplace transforms/identities come along and let you turn non-linear problems in time-based space, into much simpler problems in frequency-based space. Shit blows your mind.

THEN a mafacka comes along and teaches you that these tools can be used to turn complex differential system problems (electrical, mechanical, thermal, hydrolic, etc) into simple DC circuits you can analyze/solve in frequency-based space, then convert back into time-based space for the answers.

I know this is super applied calculus shit, but I always love that sweet spot where all the high-concept math finally hits the pavement.

[–] djmarcone 21 points 11 months ago

And then they tell you that the fundamental equations for thermal, fluid, electrical and mechanical are all basically the same when you are looking at the whole Laplace thing. It's all the same....

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] timeisart 46 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Multiply 9 times any number and it always "reduces" back down to 9 (add up the individual numbers in the result)

For example: 9 x 872 = 7848, so you take 7848 and split it into 7 + 8 + 4 + 8 = 27, then do it again 2 + 7 = 9 and we're back to 9

It can be a huge number and it still works:

9 x 987345734 = 8886111606

8+8+8+6+1+1+1+6+0+6 = 45

4+5 = 9

Also here's a cool video about some more mind blowing math facts

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nfamwap 41 points 11 months ago (3 children)

11 X 11 = 121

111 X 111 = 12321

1111 X 1111 = 1234321

11111 X 11111 = 123454321

111111 X 1111111 = 12345654321

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] aggelalex 40 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The Fourier series. Musicians may not know about it, but everything music related, even harmony, boils down to this.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago

Fourier transformed everything

[–] [email protected] 35 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Quickly a game of chess becomes a never ever played game of chess before.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Related: every time you shuffle a deck of cards you get a sequence that has never happened before. The chance of getting a sequence that has occurred is stupidly small.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jordan117 33 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Euler's identity, which elegantly unites some of the most fundamental constants in a single equation:

e^()+1=0

Euler's identity is often cited as an example of deep mathematical beauty. Three of the basic arithmetic operations occur exactly once each: addition, multiplication, and exponentiation. The identity also links five fundamental mathematical constants:

  • The number 0, the additive identity.
  • The number 1, the multiplicative identity.
  • The number π (π = 3.1415...), the fundamental circle constant.
  • The number e (e = 2.718...), also known as Euler's number, which occurs widely in mathematical analysis.
  • The number i, the imaginary unit of the complex numbers.

Furthermore, the equation is given in the form of an expression set equal to zero, which is common practice in several areas of mathematics.

Stanford University mathematics professor Keith Devlin has said, "like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's equation reaches down into the very depths of existence". And Paul Nahin, a professor emeritus at the University of New Hampshire, who has written a book dedicated to Euler's formula and its applications in Fourier analysis, describes Euler's identity as being "of exquisite beauty".

Mathematics writer Constance Reid has opined that Euler's identity is "the most famous formula in all mathematics". And Benjamin Peirce, a 19th-century American philosopher, mathematician, and professor at Harvard University, after proving Euler's identity during a lecture, stated that the identity "is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth".

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 11 months ago

The one I bumped into recently: the Coastline Paradox

"The coastline paradox is the counterintuitive observation that the coastline of a landmass does not have a well-defined length. This results from the fractal curve–like properties of coastlines; i.e., the fact that a coastline typically has a fractal dimension."

[–] PsychoNewt 30 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This is my silly contribution: 70% of 30 is equal to 30% of 70. This applies to other numbers and can be really helpful when doing percentages in your head. 15% of 77 is equal to 77% of 15.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Seeing mathematics visually.

I am a huge fan of 3blue1brown and his videos are just amazing. My favorite is linear algebra. It was like an out of body experience. All of a sudden the world made so much more sense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] backseat 27 points 11 months ago (7 children)

The square of any prime number >3 is one greater than an exact multiple of 24.

For example, 7² = 49= (2 * 24) + 1

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] joel_feila 27 points 11 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Imagine a soccer ball. The most traditional design consists of white hexagons and black pentagons. If you count them, you will find that there are 12 pentagons and 20 hexagons.

Now imagine you tried to cover the entire Earth in the same way, using similar size hexagons and pentagons (hopefully the rules are intuitive). How many pentagons would be there? Intuitively, you would think that the number of both shapes would be similar, just like on the soccer ball. So, there would be a lot of hexagons and a lot of pentagons. But actually, along with many hexagons, you would still have exactly 12 pentagons, not one less, not one more. This comes from the Euler's formula, and there is a nice sketch of the proof here: .

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Borsuk-Ulam is a great one! In essense it says that flattening a sphere into a disk will always make two antipodal points meet. This holds in arbitrary dimensions and leads to statements such as "there are two points along the equator on opposite sides of the earth with the same temperature". Similarly one knows that there are two points on the opposite sides (antipodal) of the earth that both have the same temperature and pressure.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Also honorable mentions to the hairy ball theorem for giving us the much needed information that there is always a point on the earth where the wind is not blowing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Godel's incompleteness theorem is actually even more subtle and mind-blowing than how you describe it. It states that in any mathematical system, there are truths in that system that cannot be proven using just the mathematical rules of that system. It requires adding additional rules to that system to prove those truths. And when you do that, there are new things that are true that cannot be proven using the expanded rules of that mathematical system.

"It's true, we just can't prove it'.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] randon31415 20 points 11 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This is a common one, but the cardinality of infinite sets. Some infinities are larger than others.

The natural numbers are countably infinite, and any set that has a one-to-one mapping to the natural numbers is also countably infinite. So that means the set of all even natural numbers is the same size as the natural numbers, because we can map 0 > 0, 1 > 2, 2 > 4, 3 > 6, etc.

But that suggests we can also map a set that seems larger than the natural numbers to the natural numbers, such as the integers: 0 → 0, 1 → 1, 2 → –1, 3 → 2, 4 → –2, etc. In fact, we can even map pairs of integers to natural numbers, and because rational numbers can be represented in terms of pairs of numbers, their cardinality is that of the natural numbers. Even though the cardinality of the rationals is identical to that of the integers, the rationals are still dense, which means that between any two rational numbers we can find another one. The integers do not have this property.

But if we try to do this with real numbers, even a limited subset such as the real numbers between 0 and 1, it is impossible to perform this mapping. If you attempted to enumerate all of the real numbers between 0 and 1 as infinitely long decimals, you could always construct a number that was not present in the original enumeration by going through each element in order and appending a digit that did not match a decimal digit in the referenced element. This is Cantor's diagonal argument, which implies that the cardinality of the real numbers is strictly greater than that of the rationals.

The best part of this is that it is possible to construct a set that has the same cardinality as the real numbers but is not dense, such as the Cantor set.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Etterra 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That you can have 5 apples, divide them zero times, and somehow end up with math shitting itself inside-out at you even though the apples are still just sitting there.

[–] Gardienne 45 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

You try having 5 apples and divide them into 0 equal groups and you'll shit yourself too.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Euler's identity is pretty amazing:

e^iπ + 1 = 0

To quote the Wikipedia page:

Three of the basic arithmetic operations occur exactly once each: addition, multiplication, and exponentiation. The identity also links five fundamental mathematical constants:[6]

The number 0, the additive identity.
The number 1, the multiplicative identity.
The number π (π = 3.1415...), the fundamental circle constant.
The number e (e = 2.718...), also known as Euler's number, which occurs widely in mathematical analysis.
The number i, the imaginary unit of the complex numbers.

The fact that an equation like that exists at the heart of maths - feels almost like it was left there deliberately.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

A simple one: Let's say you want to sum the numbers from 1 to 100. You could make the sum normally (1+2+3...) or you can rearrange the numbers in pairs: 1+100, 2+99, 3+98.... until 50+51 (50 pairs). So you will have 50 pairs and all of them sum 101 -> 101*50= 5050. There's a story who says that this method was discovered by Gauss when he was still a child in elementary school and their teacher asked their students to sum the numbers.

[–] ribakau 17 points 11 months ago

Fermat's Last Theorem

x^n + y^n = z^n has no solutions where n > 2 and x, y and z are all natural numbers. It's hard to believe that, knowing that it has an infinite number of solutions where n = 2.

Pierre de Format, after whom this theorem was named, famously claimed to have had a proof by leaving the following remark in some book that he owned: "I have a proof of this theorem, but there is not enough space in this margin". It took mathematicians several hundred years to actually find the proof.

[–] ArchmageAzor 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I find the logistic map to be fascinating. The logistic map is a simple mathematical equation that surprisingly appears everywhere in nature and social systems. It is a great representation of how complex behavior can emerge from a straightforward rule. Imagine a population of creatures with limited resources that reproduce and compete for those resources. The logistic map describes how the population size changes over time as a function of its current size, and it reveals fascinating patterns. When the population is small, it grows rapidly due to ample resources. However, as it approaches a critical point, the growth slows, and competition intensifies, leading to an eventual stable population. This concept echoes in various real-world scenarios, from describing the spread of epidemics to predicting traffic jams and even modeling economic behaviors. It's used by computers to generate random numbers, because a computer can't actually generate truly random numbers. Veritasium did a good video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovJcsL7vyrk

I find it fascinating how it permeates nature in so many places. It's a universal constant, but one we can't easily observe.

load more comments
view more: next ›