The Mysterious Number That Took 100 Years To Compute

Comments · 452

• PU

  @PurpleMindCreations · 1 year ago · pinned

  To watch the full interview with Professor Heule and Bernardo Subercaseaux, check out my Patreon! <a href="https://www.patreon.com/PurpleMindCS">https://www.patreon.com/PurpleMindCS</a>

  62

• SA

  @Sam_on_YouTube · 1 year ago

  They also got really lucky that the number WAS 30. They may have just ended up proving that it was greater than 30. And then we would have to try to prove it&apos;s 31.

  522

• KY

  @kylewood4001 · 1 year ago

  Someone HAS to formalize a constant for “atoms in the observable universe”, it’s referred to WAY too much for it not to be

  571

• SE

  @SellymeYT · 1 year ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_fdjA2R0bQ&amp;t=2184">36:24</a> &quot;So if no human can read it, how can we know for sure it&apos;s valid? The short answer is that instead of making a human do it, we used grad students&quot;

  142

• FU

  @furbyfubar · 1 year ago (edited)

  Minor nitpick: Writing &quot;Image from Flickr&quot; is not giving credit to the maker of the image. In the case of the DNA Sequencing image it was by Darryl Leja, NHGRI. The image is in the public domain (at least as per how it&apos;s listed on Flickr) so <b>legally</b> you don&apos;t have to credit anyone for it. But crediting Flickr and not the person who made it rubs me the wrong way. It would be like if someone wrote an article about the contents of this video and credited the research and ideas in it to &quot;YouTube&quot;. Also, for an image licensed under CC-BY it wouldn&apos;t count as properly giving credit to only write where you found it.

  1.4K

• IS

  @IsaacDickinson-tf8sf · 1 year ago

  I like that they divided by 0 through the transformation

  172

• RO

  @rocky_wang · 1 year ago

  Like the “Four Color Theorem”, the proof is a tedious phone book rather than an elegant argument 😂😂😂

  261

• CU

  @cube_cup · 1 year ago

  That part of the &apos;if the triangle is empty, there must be an empty hexagon&apos; is gorgeous! And that was Marijn&apos;s big breakthrough.<br>The way you faded him out felt like you slighted him a bit. I really wanted him to explain it

  95

• MA

  @ManicShot · 1 year ago

  Beautifully presented and I can see the many hours of love that went into it. The interviews were insightful and helped it feel grounded. Can I make a suggestion? When you&apos;ve finished a soundbite from an interviewee and you resume narrating, perhaps try cutting to something else, rather than staying on the subject and fading their sound out, because it appears as if you&apos;re talking over them. It&apos;s a minor gripe really, but thought you&apos;d appreciate the comment that something there didn&apos;t quite feel right. Please don&apos;t let that detract from this being an excellent and truly well-crafted video. Looking forward to the next one!

  30

• PI

  @pineapplewhatever5906 · 1 year ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_fdjA2R0bQ&amp;t=215">3:35</a> I can&apos;t help but notice that the four known cases are powers of two plus one.

  11

• BA

  @bakamitaiyt · 1 year ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_fdjA2R0bQ&amp;t=2250">37:30</a> Whoa, I didn&apos;t know that the initial Four-Color Theorem proof was faulty. And I did know that the classification of finite simple groups was insanely lengthy, but I didn&apos;t know that portions were proved using computer searches. Good stuff!

  52

• MO

  @MoiraLachesis · 1 year ago

  Much simpler proof for quadrilateral: connect all pairs of points. If any two intersect, they form the diagonals of a convex quadrilateral. If none intersect, they you have a complete planar graph. Complete graphs with 5 or more nodes are never planar.

  169