#math video

[mathhombre]

Kyne Santos

Math in Drag

[art-of-mathematics]

Ant travelling across klein bottle

I found that video with that caption on instagram:

[prokopetz]

Kerbal Space Program was once afflicted by a bug the fans dubbed the "Deep Space Kraken", whereby if you travelled far enough from the origin of the game's coordinate system, floating point rounding errors would cause your spacecraft's components to become misaligned and/or clip into each other, resulting in the craft falling apart or exploding for no obvious reason.

The bug was later fixed by defining the active spacecraft itself as the origin of the game's coordinate system. In effect, the spacecraft no longer moves; instead, the spacecraft remains stationary and the entire universe moves around it. Owing to how relativity works, to the player this is indistinguishable from the spacecraft moving about within a fixed coordinate system, and it ensures that the body of the craft and its components will always be modelled with maximal precision.

While elegant, this solution introduced a new problem: it was now possible, by doing certain stupid tricks with relativistic velocities, to introduce floating point rounding errors to everything except the active spacecraft. In extreme cases, this could result in the destruction of the entire observable universe.

Some might call this one of those situations where the solution proves to be worse than the problem. I call it a perfect expression of what Kerbal Space Program is truly about.

[viejospellejos]

[cayliecoltrane]

quick lil ETHOwO redraw

[whatsupspaceman]

we could have mobile games like cool math duck life and papas pizzeria and bloonz tower defense and old masterpieces like original angry birds and jet pack joyride and small online games like webkinz home before dark and polar bear plunge and flash games like holeio and snake and we could have barbie dress up and horse riding and we could have them all without thousands of shitty 2 minute ads and microtransactions and unskippable popups and imbedded app store links and we could have new games new incredible story based adventures, puzzles, well designed mini platformers, we have an entire universe of unexplored medium right here in the palm of your hand! we could have REAL games! real wonderful games not misleading not clickbait we could have everything in the whole wide world and we could have them them on the phone! WE COULD HAVE THEM ON THE PHONE !!!!!!!!!!! DOES IT NOT MAKE YOU SICK???? DOES IT NOT SHATTER YOUR HEART !!!!

[catchymemes]

undefined

[packitandgo]

[lilacandladybugs]

wtf is discrete math this is silly. free the math. let the math be scandalous

[homeofhousechickens]

Beeper learning math. Its always so funny to me how she looks like she is paying attention 😂

[collidew1thesky]

this should everyone’s sign to request more stuff from me

[slushi-chan]

I Love when they edit Spencer into the crime scene like this explaining stuff it looks so funny

[prokopetz]

your fucked up little guys post reminded me of a weird piece of lost (?) media I've been trying to find for a while. it was a vaguely math themed website and/or browser game with a lot of weird rabbit hole paths and there was a fucked up little guy named THE MOOCHER who you had to make change for (trench coat, shadowed, untrustworthy). i think there was also a potted plant that was spying on you. i know you're not r/whatsthatbook but it feels like your demographic of followers might know it??

(With reference to this post here.)

I'm about 90% certain you're thinking of the Absurd Math series. The Moocher pops up in episode 1, about five questions in.

(Frankly, I'm kind of amazed it's not only still online, but also vaguely playable – none of the posted episodes seem to have been updated since 1999 at the latest.)

[stemwithjooricanka]

[rotisseries]

everyone who tells you to delete tiktok is right btw

[simplydnp]

who's hand is in this picture?

A Mathematically Rigorous Proof That I Spent Too Long Writing

welcome to university math: dnp hand edition

(no, don't leave, you'll be fine i promise)

to begin, we need a statement to prove. we have two options:

- the hand is dan's hand

- the hand is phil's hand

now, for most proofs in university math, you are told a true statement, and you must show why it is true using logic rules, definitions, and theorems. but, we do not know which of these statements are true, so we have to find out.

to prove that a statement is true, we must show that it is always true for the situation presented. to show a statement is false, we must present a single instance where the statement is false (also known as a counter example).

a quick not scary math example:

definition: a prime number is only divisible by 1 and itself.

statement: all prime numbers are odd

(this is false, because 2 is a prime number and it is even. you don't even need to check if there's any others, all you need is one single case where it isn't true to disprove it)

so now that we have a little background on proofs and how to prove and disprove them, we go back to our two statements.

the thing with this situation is, one of them must be true (unless you're gung-ho on someone else holding dan's face while phil takes a picture on his phone of dan in his glasses, in which case, i applaud your commitment, but in actuality this proof will cover that option too)

the full statement we have is: dan is touching his face or phil is touching dan's face

now, because this is Real Life and we have a picture where a hand is touching dan's face, we know already that one of these options is true (as mentioned above) but! using symbolic logic you could also come to this conclusion.

this type of statement is an 'or' statement, and if you're curious, you can look into 'truth-tables' and see why, but at least one of the options must be true.

back to the proof at hand (bah-duhm-tss)

okay. now, proofs also must be 'general' in order to mean anything, really. these are statements of truth of the universe, not just for individuals. so, we will prove this generally.

we have 2 people involved, so individual 1 (dan, the owner of the face and potential face toucher) will be labelled as 'D' , and individual 2 (phil, the possible face toucher who does not own the face) will be labelled as 'P'. thus, this can be true for any such D and any such P.

so with our 'or' statement, in order to prove it, we pick one of the options and say that it is not true, and we have to show then that the other is true.

step 1: let's assume this is not P's hand. (assumption)

step 2: thus, it must be D's hand. (what we take from our assumption)

step 3: now, if it is D's hand, we look at what a hand on one's own face is capable of appearing like. (a definition or true fact about step 2)

the position in the given photo shows the hand with a thumb on the cheek, and a finger on the forehead. so, we find an example of a person with their fingers in the same position (or close to) and see if this supports our claim.

consider:

now, with this image, you can clearly see how the subject's right hand has the thumb on the temple and index finger on the top of their head, however, it is a close enough position for our case.

from the view of the camera, the closest finger to the camera is the edge of the pinkie. in fact, it will always be the closest finger to the camera in this position, assuming the subject has all fingers and no additional appendages.

step 4: we now compare this to our photo (we verify if this holds to our claim or contradicts it)

in our photo, the closest appendage to the camera is the edge of the thumb.

step 5: thus, it cannot be the case that D is touching their own face. (what the evidence says)

step 6: as we assumed it was not P's hand and have shown it cannot be D's hand, and as this is an 'or' statement both of these claims cannot be false, we can therefore conclude it must be P's hand. (our conclusion: re-stating the statement and assumptions and conclusion)

step 7: we verify that P is true (optional step but in beginner proofs you generally show why your case works)

to do this, i will show a picture of a person touching another's face, and compare it to our image.

consider:

now, this image is not exactly the same, similar to above. however, P's left thumb is on the cheek, with their index on D's temple. the closest appendage to the camera (if it were in a similar perspective as our original) would be the edge of the thumb.

comparing it to our original:

our comparison holds.

thus, we can conclude that the true claim in this statement is that P must be touching D's face, which, in particular means that:

phil is touching dan's face in the image

thank you for partaking in phannie mathematics. we now know. i am not sorry.

bonus:

phil has a hitchhikers thumb and dan doesn't so why was this necessary at all 🤡