READY for never-before-seen card magic that will enable you to design your own amazing card effects?
READY for card magic that draws from deep reservoirs of intellectual ingenuity and creativity?
READY for card magic that fosters an understanding of powerful ideas and principles?
If so, you have come to the right place: the Hidden Structures channel!
This channel is teeming with original ideas and mind-blowing effects that will advance and enliven the field of mathematical card magic.
Equally important, this channel lays the foundation for the formal study of Cyclic and Mirrored structures and the remarkable properties and relationships among these and their offspring (see the free Hidden Structures online course).
I invite you to join a movement of card magic that will not only delight your audience but will also enable YOU to develop your own brand of card magic that will both surprise and inspire generations to come.
This is excellent, and I will learn and perform it. The only thing is I do not want to end by telling the spectator that he/she is unlucky. One possible way around this would be to ask them to hand me either pile of cards. If they pick the "7" pile, I would say, ""OK, Let's see what your choice reveals about you" and then show that they are "in for a run off good luck." If they hand me the "13" pile, I would say, "Great, and now pick up the other pile for yourself." I would then show that it looks like luck isn't in the cards for me and that I'd better cancel my trip to Vegas and avoid black cats and walking under ladders. But they, on the other hand are in for a run of good luck.
If you haven't found it already, you may be interested in Norman Gilbreath's own 300-page book on this principle, Beyond Imagination. It's still in stock at Vanishing Inc. for $55.
hello. i continued to play with it, and saw that in minimum steps of shuffle the outcome is differents. is there a minimum steps that have to be done ?
Hi Kent! I really enjoy your research. Since discovering your work, I’ve been experimenting with Bessey sequences, and the fractal nature of these sequences was immediately apparent to me. Naturally, I looked for their decimal equivalents (1, 2, 9, 150, 38505, ....) in the OEIS and found that they correspond to sequence A133468, though nothing particularly interesting came up there. I’d like to ask if you’ve looked into the properties of this operation when starting from arbitrary binary numbers? For example, I’ve tried beginning with numbers like 11, 1100, and 11000011 and explored connections through the Triangle of coefficients of polynomials, but so far, I haven’t found much of value. I also examined combinations of 3-digit sequences, as they could be intriguing given that by degree 5, we’d be reaching 48 cards. However, this would likely require combinations like a faro shuffle of order 3 or even more unconventional shuffles. Additionally, I found an interesting sequence that works with 52 cards, though unfortunately, it only withstands faro shuffles and not much else. I’d be very curious to hear if you’ve discovered anything along these lines!
one thing i didn't understand ( for now ) the swiching in the beginning, can it done with any two cards, and as many times as the spectator wants and it will not change the outcome ( 2 black, 2 red , and 4 red/black) ?
The rule is that for each pair of cards of opposite color that are switched at the beginning, there will be 1 Red pair and 1 Black pair at the end. Since in the performance (and the tutorial) 2 pairs of cards of opposite colors are switched, then there will be 2 Red pairs and 2 Black pairs at the end. But you bring up a good point: It's best not to offer the spectator to do the switching too many times, otherwise, the performer will likely lose track of whether some of the same cards are being switched with other cards multiple times. I think allowing (up to) 3 switches should be enough for both the spectator and the performer.
@@AbsoluteMathMagic indeed works fine. another question: you mentioned that a lot of shuffles can be done, maybe odd down\even up, deal for four piles and collect from one side or collect by frog collecting or some other shuffles, is it ok to do all these ? but i assume that the last step must be deal for 8 piles. true ?
I totally agree, but I don’t think I’ve ever known that Bessey Sequences and Quasi-Bessey Sequences are intrinsically related to a famous fractal construction. That is really fascinating, so I don’t mind learning new routines based on the “same principle.” In fact, it reminds me of the versatility of the Gilbreath Principle and the Hummer Principle, which continue to be the inspiration and engine driving many new and extremely surprising applications over these many decades now. Thank you for freely sharing your talent and passion for mathematical card magic! 👍👍
This is GREAT!! I love card magic and enjoy Fractals. I was first introduced to Fractals when I read “Chaos” by James Gleick when it was first published !
Sincere apologies have retried and procedure does work using ace to six and random stacking Really enjoying the various mixing routines from absolute math magic keep up the good work
I can't believe this video ONLY has 160 views! Come to think of it, I should be glad since few people will be utilizing this guy's amazing math principles! So keeping it secret is great for those of us who have stumbled onto his channel! 🤫
I'm afraid you must have forgotten something about the ending if the spectator chooses inside-out, or outside-in. Left-to-right, and right-to-left work perfectly, but the other 2 ways end up positioning the colors in alternating blocks of 3 cards each. Am I missing something?
Yes, you are correct. If the spectator chooses either the "Inside-Out" or the "Outside-In," the packet will end with 6 Red cards facing one way, and 6 Black cards facing the other way. But, in these two cases, each set of 6 cards (of the same color) will split into two blocks of 3 cards each. This does not really pose a problem unless you promise the spectator that the 6 cards will be consecutive, which I never did---and there's no reason to. In fact, for some spectators, the block of 6 consecutive cards is a little too convenient and suspicious-looking than the cards being split across two blocks of consecutive cards. Great Observation! 👍
If, for whatever reason, you don't want the cards of the same color split into two blocks of 3 cards each, then just limit the spectator's "folding choices" to Left to Right or Right to Left. This works great since the "Inside-Out" and "Outside-In" are rather unusual choices to offer the spectator in the first place. 👍
this principle can be use to make a trick little more "magical". use 13 hearts cards and 13 clubs cards ( or 10 by 10 ). the cards are roughly mix by spectator. you ask spectator to name any card ( clubs or hearts). you do the mantra red up/red down, but put the slected card the opposite side. continue with the proccess as describe, and in the end all the red face on one side and all the black on the other side except the chosen card.
interesting. if i understand it right, the goal is to bring the last outcome that i want to the M stack, and once it's in the M stack i can do all the shuffling and finish with clone. am i right ?
Yes, that works. But it's also fine to finish with either of the other two structures (a 2-Cycle or an AMP). Although when Mirrored, you're right, there's more mixing that can be done when the packet has that structure. Great comment!
@@TheAvimag If you have the cards in a 2-Cycle arrangement (i.e., 1 2 | 1 2). Just deal the cards left/right into two piles. If you have the cards in an AMP arrangement (i.e., 1 1 | 2 2), then you can just push off the top two cards as one pair, leaving the remaining two cards as the second pair. 👍
Oh, perfect! I can cut-and-paste my previous comment: "Many people who are sent to Jason's videos that are labelled as "Self-Working Card Tricks" don't know they're being hurdled into the middle of a fight between Jason and his "haters." They're just there to learn a cool card trick to show their children or impress their classmates. Given the title of his video "Card Magic: Self-Working Math Magic Trick EXPOSED," they have no expectations of being misled about the video's content or purpose. So, indeed, Jason's "self-working" comments are not at all obvious sarcasm to these innocent, unsuspecting victims of RU-vid's algorithm."
What is more, viewers genuinely searching for "Self-Working or Mathematical Card Tricks" are being sent to the channel of a Con Artist. Not so funny . . . anymore.
@@MaryRoberts-d7c lol, that is hilarious, what are you talking about?? It's a RU-vid video about self working card tricks... Not to mention, within a minute or two of watching it, it's painfully obvious that it's sarcasm. But seriously, so what? It doesn't hurt anyone. This isn't a serious issue. Please, get some perspective.
I've followed Jason for years and it does seem that he has taken a slight turn into a more sarcastic---even sardonic---performance style. And, unfortunately, he appears to hold in contempt many of the viewers who support his RU-vid channel. I'm not sure how far he's going to go down this particular road. To say that "everyone knows he's acting" is just not true---just read the comments. To say that only "stupid people won't know that" bolsters my point.
He doesn't hold his fans in contempt... He holds the haters who comment dumb shit like "edited", "fake", and "luck" in a bit of contempt, but it's all mostly tongue and cheek for the most part. It's just a shtick. This video is so ridiculous and comments like yours are almost equally so. It's just humor and his "self working" comments are obvious sarcasm...
@@xtraspecialj No, this video is not ridiculous, nor are the concerns raised in the comments. Many people who are sent to Jason's videos that are labelled as "Self-Working Card Tricks" don't know they're being hurdled into the middle of a fight between Jason and his "haters." They're just there to learn a cool card trick to show their children or impress their classmates. Given the title of his video "Card Magic: Self-Working Math Magic Trick EXPOSED," they have no expectations of being misled about the video's content or purpose. So, indeed, Jason's "self-working" comments are not at all obvious sarcasm to these innocent, unsuspecting victims of RU-vid's algorithm.
Although I do love watching Jason's performances on RU-vid and TikTok, I would have to agree that he’s taken the “Self-Working or Mathematical Card Trick EVERYONE Can Perform” a bit too far. The example you feature in this video of Jason doing this, is pretty egregious, but I think an earlier video of his is sadly even worse: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zuBHPQQt4c4.html I honestly don’t think he needs to go to this level of deception in order to draw people to his channel to watch his spectacular card handling skills.
You guys have got to be kidding, right?? It's a joke... It's blatant and obvious sarcasm... It's his whole shtick that he's constantly proving his doubters wrong and the "self working" card trick videos are part of the little "fight" he's having with the haters. It's his way of making fun of them. This video and comments like yours make it even better because you don't get it and actually think there's something wrong with it. Hilarious.
@@xtraspecialj You’re welcome. I’m glad to brighten your day. Can you not see in the comments that a significant number of people are well-intended in clicking on his video to learn a mathematical card trick that anyone can perform. It’s the boldface lying and bait-and-switch that I (and others) find distasteful. If Jason has an issue with his “haters,” then he shouldn't compound the problem by lying to and then insulting innocent bystanders sent to his “self-working card tricks” by RU-vid’s omniscient algorithm.
@@SarahParker-o5k bold face lie?!? It's a joke... An extremely obvious one. Get over yourself, seriously. There are ACTUAL things to be upset about in this world. This is NOT one of them... Get a sense of humor or go watch somebody else. His videos are not for you apparently.
The best way to demonstrate that they are "mathematical" tricks is to reveal them and that the spectator can also perform them... The fact that they are not revealed implies the denial that "they are mathematical"
