We would normally start off by asking, math or maths? But hooray, Kit actually covers this for us in the first 20 seconds! So instead, if you enjoyed this video please do let us know in the comments, and be sure to check out Kit's Q&A after the talk here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ajIIPPlZkHg.html
"IF" numbers themselves do not exist in this universe by this or some similar way for math to do what math does in this universe, 'then' how exactly would numbers exist in this universe for math to do what math does in this universe? (Reusable code from my files): 'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows: Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction. Then: 1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe. (And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have).
Here are copy and pastes of the TOE idea and associated gravity test: Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) (An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
When they say that 10% of tests for breast cancer are false, how do they determine that since it's a mistake ? Besides, they don't mention of these 10% are part of the first statement "0,4% have breast cancer". It creates a self-referring equation, I'm not even sure it can be solved and tbh I'm too lazy to verify it.
I have never understood how Americans lost the rather obvious s from the end of the word. Let’s just say it was the French who made them change it, like roads and spelling.
I read communication, neurobiology and psychology books for fun. 1 billion dollars is how much the USA spends a year in foreign aid. If you want to make it seems big, just let the number as it is, the human brain doesn't comprehend such numbers so it will feel outrageous. If you want to make it seems little, says that it costs to each citizens about a soft drink a year and you are good. I lied when I said the human brain doesn't comprehend such numbers, but actually, only your frontal lobe can (kind of), and it's a hard task, and he will be off when you will see this number anyway. And actually, even if your frontal lobe makes the outrageous effort to comprehend this number and what it actually means in this context, the rest of the brain won't, and this is the important part because your frontal lobe have an even harder effort to make to drive your emotions. You perfectly knows the ibuprophen you just took will take about an hour to kick, but it's been 30 seconds and you already feel better. The placebo does not requires cognition (at least, not fully). I just mashed-up these books: Behave (Sapolsky) and Made to Stick (Heath brothers).
Here in the U.S. our guhmment (government) scientists love to spread cherry picked statistics to fuel their agenda. Too many want to believe people in that position with that power, hence the reason of our excusing ourselves from the climate change challenge.
22:00 Not only is the risk of eating bacon vastly exaggerated as Kit says, there's also the problem of correlation vs causation. It may be that people who eat bacon also have other lifestyle choices that lead to a higher prevalence of colon cancer. Maybe they don't eat enough vegetables for example and that is the actual cause.
The kind of thing that is done is to say (perhaps) that tongue cancer must be caused by drinking coffee because tongue cancer went up after lots of people starting drinking coffee. (A correlation.) But tongue cancer also went up after lots of people starting eating carrots. (At about the same time, in other words.) For some reason people will go for the coffee theory but not the carrot theory.
I have always the policy of trusting mathematics, but not trusting the humans that use them. So many examples in so many fields. I recommend all to watch the banned talk about science from Rupert Sheldrake, he speaks, amongst other topics, the way the scientific constants are really not such. Good video, thanks for sharing.
Buddy, in stats world. You can manipulate the data to make it does certain thing. Of course, once you find your desired value, you must state what you make changes to the data. Par example, if we have a list of data under the Box "X." We can manipulate it to be (1/x) or x² or x^(1/2) or ln(x) or etc... basically... yes. Your teacher is correct... any data in Stats can be manipulated to support said conclusions. However, if you didn't learn it. It's a AP STATS thing then cause this is found in AP Stats.
Just a great example of why you should never form a bias based on a stat-sensational story headline. One can make up almost any statistic to form a bias towards a viewpoint. Reading between the lines takes dedicating a little time and a little bit of energy and simple diagnostic thought. Ever wonder why in our society today where immediate knee-jerk reaction to social media headlines sparks complete disproportional responses? This is why.
My grategrandmother (material) was diagnosed with breast cancer at 63 and lived for 32 further years (dying of "old age" without cancer related symptoms)... Being aware of the risk helps, biopsy results if cancer is identified are interesting to me.
Am I the only one who found the wording of the first problem, wrong? It clearly said POSITIVIE mammograms, not "letters sent out" as the answer contained.
I don't get why doctors send such freightening letters to women, just tell them the test was inconclusive and they'd want to have them tested again... if it was positiv twice within a week you can still send them to the hospital without wasting a crucial amount of time and prevent this exaggerated dose of stress
Probably a legal issue. I’m sure a lawyer can come up with a good reason as to why those extra few days were critical to her chance of surviving cancer and now they are gone bc you lied.
I'm American and I say maths. There's all different kinds. I love physics, which makes me wish I had more of them. I usually say arithmetic for plain old numbers stuff.
Ah, but - what did Thelonius say? Both _mathematics_ and _maths_ are correct as both are both plural and singular. Did you know that René Descartes was also a monk? Just a meaningless query.
I. Ehrenfest Mmmm, I'd have say, in terms of regular usage, "physics" isn't wrong where I come from. If it is, then I've got a stack of books with faulty titles.
Birthday problem: it's interesting in that there are lots of problems where probability quickly rises towards "1" (certainty) but no matter how close it gets it never quite reaches exactly one - well, the birthday problem definitely does reach certainty at 366 people - it's impossible for none of them to share a birthday at that point... :)
You are right, he actually got the wrong answer there. His formula never reaches 100% certainty. The real probability for 23 people where no two people share a birthday is a bit smaller than 49.995: 365/365 x 364/365 x 363/365 x ... x 343/365 = 49.927%. This number is calculated by multiplying the probability that each consecutive person does not share his birthday with any of the previously asked people: (Not taking the 29th of February into account and assuming every date has equal probability).
Re: Breast screening. This is the initial step. For any abnormalities, the next step is (laser-guided) biopsy. This is the best diagnostic tool to confirm and settle the mind.
Huh. Per the FBI website Mr. Yates drew his data from, the total number of murders in the US was 15,696. The Table 6 where he drew his numbers from was specifically for metro areas, which leaves nearly 10,000 murders unaccounted for. Can you draw a reasonable conclusion when you omit nearly 2/3 of the data?
Sure. But, with a good enough sampling parameters. The conclusion will be reasonable but not necessarily generalizable. This is precisely how stats work. Of course it will be limited and a lot of scientist and researchers made the mistake of using the same sampled data to do analysis and further sampling from the sample when the parameter for the first sample was biased towards a different question. If he was concerned only with crimes in the metro or that an initial data already points to difference of close to zero significance for two population subgroup, then why waste your time and computing power for the entire thing? Imagine you have 10e64 observations, if you want your analysis to be useful in the present then you cannot use all of 10e64 observations. 1/4 of that will simply be too much. But in the case of just 30k observation, then our current computing power should be more than capable. If we limit ourselves to using all data (a census), then stat will have significant limitation as well. I could even make the argument that the statistician should not use the rural data. Why? Because if I can find information on the unreliability of rurally-generated data, then I'd be reducing my margin of error. Or if the population on the rural area is made up of just one ethnic group that is different from the metro. Of course it would be a different matter if the two areas are homogenous in the variable I am looking at. But I am pretty sure these cases would be very limited. It is always best to run different computations on each subgroup with clear difference.
Similarly, in most cases the murder cases in the metro is different from murders committed in rural areas. Murders in traditionally defined rural areas will fall in the different category. It might be better to separate the data by time since crime clearly differ by period and further reduce the percentage of data you will be usuing. There are just a lot of ways to study a dataset and using the entire data for a single question rarely generates a reasonable conclusion and will often produce very limited insight. Just an example, using the world population to check the ratio of male to female will give you a close 50:50 ratio but this does not mean that every city or square kilometer area will have a 50:50 ratio as well. If you are concerned about how many women are in construction areas, that information is simply not useful. That said, you can ignore about 99% of the data or observations and you'd be even more correct than using 100% of it.
The final problem is not correct. You are finding a nearly 90% chance that two of the events fall on the same day but that is subtly different to the statement. In the statement you are given a day and should look for the odds that it randomly fell on one of the other 38 event days. Not that ANY fell on the same days. If say two fell on the same day but the one I am talking about did not, then it would be irrelevant. It is the difference between asking the odds that ANY 2 people in a group of 39 share a birthday and asking if any 1 of the 38 people share a birthday with ME.
Can we trust maths? The real question is, can we trust the person, both his competence and motives. By the way, people are not bad at maths, they had bad teachers.
Can anyone make sense of the numbers at 29:00? What are the percentages referring to? However you group them (by victim groups/by killer groups), they always addsup to more than 100% somewhere.
Some policemen are black and some are white so that part is double-counted. In fact, the figures don't cover 100% but rather 98% and 97% for black and white people respectively.
A better title would have been "Can we trust statistics?" There are some aspects of mathematics that are absolutely cast iron, and its misleading to lump these together with statistical procedures.
No we cannot trust statistics. There is a mathematical theory of sampling. There is a mathematical theory of probability. There is nothing in mathematics that can tell if a real sample conforms to the assumptions. There is nothing in mathematics that can tell if real events conform to the assumptions that would make the probability match. There is nothing in mathematics that can tell you if a statistic is true, or correct, or probable. OTOH, there is a case where it was detected that the sampling was faked because the numbers conformed exactly to the predicted probability, proof positive that it was faked. But it is worse than that. In the intro to statistics they will tell you that if you know the data completely, you can make it seem to prove whatever you like. Therefore, because of the nature of human psychology, a theory is never reliably confirmed unless you predict the result before you know the data. There is nothing you can do after the data is known that can be relied on to confirm a theory.
Kenneth Florek but mathematics is only a tool for reasoning anyway. At the very least, it can give us an indication of the confidence we attach to competing hypotheses
He definitely promoted his book a bit too much and I noticed that at least from the camera angle we got he played down the amount of people who got the question correct. Regardless of that, this remains an informative talk, but I wouldnt buy his book, the general public needs to be more savvy with maths, I honestly recommend to buy a maths book from the highschool curriculum and solve the exercises, you gotta start somewhere.
He asks the question wrong! Of the people singled out for' further' screening that actually have breast cancer. The answer he gives is not an answer to this question. If the test is 90% accurate than those singled out by it have a roughly 90% chance of having cancer. This group may only be roughly 3.5% of the ten thousand, the question is about the screened [40] group not the starting population [10,000].
The lecturer emphasizes that politicians should not be believed. This should equally be applied to anyone making political points; as the lecturer himself does, for instance. The lecturer states quite a few things that are political in nature. The lecturer uses framing (surrounding the politics with other things not political) to leave the impression that the political points were actually mathematical. Using material from the US (so the lecturer may look apolitical) to make points that are as political in the UK as they are in the US, besides being disingenuous, leaves his UK audience without a background to judge their status. The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) is not pertinent in murder cases (or robberies, or 99% of crimes) in the US because murder laws (and 99% of law) are not Federal. They are state laws, different in every one of the 50 states; and the way the statistics are collected and counted is different in every state. There is no reason at all to bring up the FBI in a discussion of murder in the US. Of course if the US Congress decides the FBI should get involved in these statistics, the FBI will. This is what the FBI director was referring to. The thought that the statistics will then become apolitical is completely absurd. It is astounding how the Guardian in the UK is regarded as a dependable source for murder statistics concerning the US. That is the opposite of newspapers in the US, because in the US every newspaper is political, and uses "framing" as its universal method of presentation. The lecturer does not explain how the bogus statistics he exhibits are officially Republican, so that Republicans in general affirm them. Any of the millions of Republicans (or Democrats) can put out a document with anything they like in it (it's a free country), and it does not thereby have the status of being Republican (or Democrat.) It is routine when suspect documents surface for Republican Party officials (or Democrat Party officials) to disavow them. Factoids (things which are not facts) are not confined to one political party. The lecturer makes it apparent that he selected Republicans as the offenders against truth because he is an opponent of what would correspond to the Republicans in the UK. Sebastian Gorka, specifically, does not have some anti-Islamic or anti-Arab agenda. False accusation is the tactic Democrats (and no doubt whatever corresponds in the UK) use whenever anyone says a criminal act was committed because of an Islamic or Arabic agenda. Contrary to the accusations of the lecturer, the intent of presenting the statistics on killings, whether the bogus ones or the real ones, is exactly the one the lecturer makes, kind of back-handed so you might not have noticed. Killings by police and killings by whites are not why killings of blacks may be high. And it's not that the average black is killing the average black either, as the lecturer is making it out to be. It is a criminal segment of blacks doing it to other blacks The primary reason for killings by police likely is a result of sometimes things happening the policeman could not anticipate, or neglected to. To turn the situation around, or save his own life, the only option afterward becomes escalating violence, which may kill a suspect, or outright shooting. Dealing with more violence in criminals, and more criminals, results in more consequential mistakes, and more damage.
I have been waiting for a hip replacement for two years . Several times, I have been denied my operation, because the stats say that I am not a dying patient. I've had enough. I'm dying tonight
It wasnt the most eloquent way of advertising his own book but it was just one sentence he said in an otherwise very engaging and well structured talk. I think people often look for things to disagree with, but that energy would be much better spent looking for ideas that we can take away and appreciate
@@xiexie8221 I'd not have complained if it was not the Royal Institution. So far, people (some much more famous and knowledgeable) making a speech there did it without advertising. Not to mention that his exposé was very basic, nothing particular there. If you begin to mix personal gain with the content, this will quickly fall like Tedx and become a disguised plateform for unknown's people in need of promotion.
@@En_theo thats a fair point, i would hate to see the quality of RI lectures fall because of changes in business model. Although it makes me wonder if providing chances for self promotion is a incentive for more professionals from many different disciplines to come share knowledge? I dont know if the number of in-depth, non self-promoting talks has been declining recently, but remember RI lectures have always catered for a wide range people of different levels of knowledge and understanding
@@xiexie8221 Well this is a basic statistic tutorial that you can find anywhere, while a guy like Eric Laithwaite got his lectures unpublished for a while and he was not promoting anything but pure share of knowledge. Go figure...
It would be naive to put all your faith in numbers, because numbers don't exist before human perception, and human perception doesn't exist before reality itself.
I haven't seen this video _yet_ but I do have to say that mathematics is _not_ a human construct. In human knowledge it is one of the few things that isn't. Mathematical theorems are _discovered_ rather than invented. Even statistical theory is _discovered_ and it accurately describes even the internal workings of a star (not Hollywood, celestial). It is only wrong when either it doesn't have enough data or it is misused. Sadly politicians often misuse it.
They can't be. They handle imaginary numbers. They are imaginary so that they can understand the numbers. Imaginary numbers for imaginary mathematicians.
Tibor Pejic I’ve slightly simplified the maths by assuming independent birthdays, and with a large enough sample size this is a fine assumption, but your right it’s not completely correct.
I don't get the last example. That is, I get the mathematically correct message, but not the politically correct message. Gorka, allegedly in an attempt to "further an anti-islamic agenda", says that two attacks happening on the same day cannot be a coincidence, which implies that there must be a dark and scary plan behind it. But, hear hear, you can prove him wrong by doing the math! There are in fact so many islamistic attacks, that two of them are *expected* to happen on the same day by pure coindicence. But isn't stating this fact even *more* scary and "anti-islamic"?
Humans can not be trusted. Or Humans can be trusted. Or some Humans can be trusted but not others. Or some Humans can be trusted some of the time, but are untrustworthy at other times. Please create an algorithm to explain the above.
Reading tabloid newspapers is pretty stupid anyways and getting any "facts" from tabloid newspapers or from politicians is especially so. Just ignore the trash and you have far fewer numbers to check.
There's also the point that the Ariana Grande concert was probably his best target (both in regards to his message and potential number of victims) for a couple of months, and unless someone can prove that Abedi was somehow involved in planning her tour so she'd play in Manchester on that particular date … yeah.
Started off poorly by removing math PhDs from "real people". If you're going to run an hour long marketing ad for a book, you should probably not start with such a poor choice of words.
.....okay humour me - how would an individual who prefers "maths" refer to multiple concurrent courses on mathematics? It can't be "mathses" ... is "I signed up for two maths and a biochem this semester" nonsensical to them? Functions and algebra were offered concurrently when I was in school so let's say it's relevant.
The difference here is that you refer to your maths courses as "math" but that doesn't change anything about the fact that functions and algebra are both part of the field of mathematics, or maths. Would you refer to your hypothetical kinematics and electromagnetism courses as two physics?
@@cedarbobedar7223 , Isn't it two [math(s)] courses? Basically you still have math(s) as qualifier only while courses is actually the word which is affected by numeral. At least that is how my native language works. But English seems to be a confusing mess in many instances.
The speaker says he is giving the correct statistics, whereas Trump gave the wrong ones. Do you dispute this, or do you genuinely not want to listen to facts that are at odds with your beliefs?
This guy terminology makes me cringe me. As a person who studies stats... "fake positive" or etc phrases in the 1st example is terrible. For one, let it be known either as an TYPE 1 or TYPE 2 ERROR when encountered. You can use a 1- or 2- Z-sample or T-sample test to determine that once you state the Ho and Ha. Of which... easy in context.
How about you use those skills to work out the test statistic of people who understand anything about what you are talking about. This is why he gets invited to do talks and you don't. If you talk like that no one will listen to you. You need to make it so others can understand. It's hard enough for people to understand oxymorons like "false positives" let alone things like Type 1 errors, degrees of freedom and p-values champ.
@@reqq47 I tried to write the Hebrew character aleph here but copying it reversed the writing direction. So I use the Roman alphabet word - _isn't that aleph 1?_
