How many different Youtube videos are possible? 

+YK L Hopefully it will catch on! I like to think big.

@@standupmaths "Um boss, I like to have a small salary increase, how about a universe?"

I realize this is a joke, but that actually wouldn't matter. Most of these videos would just be filled with random data, and random data doesn't generally compress.

+dsman115276 OR is it random? If you went about generating the videos in a sequence and knew which number of video you were on you'd know about the difference between the video next and before you, etc... which sounds a lot like the principal that mpeg compression is based on..

Having every video in existence means you have every possible combination of 0's and 1's that forms a video, making it impossible to apply a generic compression algorithm per-video that would result in a net-loss of total data. My comment was specifically about MPEG compression, which is per-video. What you described could work, but it is not a per-video compression algorithm. Without extra data, you could not immediately find and start playing any video from the list. If you wanted to play video 1,000,204 you would have to go through the first 1,000,203 to calculate what it should be. Because of this, the techniques are not equivalent.

Also he was using the file size as the upper bound, which includes the compression

It would not be filled with random data, it would be filled with all data, eventually, so only a few would actually not be compressible. There would be a LOT of redundant data iterating through all possibilities. Regardless, the time is the factor here, not the storage.

lol Funny seeing you here

I lost some of the rice cake I was eating when he said that !!

tf r u doing here?

and, unsurpisingly, that base is logarithmic

Well I never expected to find you here

imawhale actually there will be a picture of every person in the universe and some porn as well

@@rubenspooky Also some small codes and passwords

Or even big ones, if you encrypt them in binary

So there is a chance.

@@Kokurorokuko why encrypt them in binary? theyre already encrypted in 256-ary, just use that

But you didn't. Also I didn't

he did. He didn't say Parker square!

Ludvig SC Games But he made an implicit reference. It still _is_ a reference. (Also the post contains the words "Parker" and "square")

Yeah, I apologize, that was a real Parker square on my part.

+Zejgar hahaha :) yeah a real parker square moment

It’s been 2 years and this man still has 4 likes

@@greenscreamyeet7966 +1 like, wish I could add more

It’s been 3 and this man still has seven likes

Make it 8 ... ... actually you would not be confined to the 256x256 resolution. you might just take the images which are tiles of e.g. Parkers handstand+bananas in 4K resolution and add together the whole 4K image (even in color if you happen to find R, G and B tiles). You would even find images of that exact banana skin in electron microscopy resolution. There would also be all images of the blueprints needed to build that super computer :-)

51

+kausthubh Gadamsetty Hahah, yeah.

Have you seen the v sauce video about the library of Babel?

and the killer of JFK and how jesus really looked like

+

Or a parker square

50 Shades of Grey sounds like an even more terrible novel to me.

4 shades of off-green would be even worse

It leaves enough room for a sequal "The Next 50 Shades of Grey"

@@1e1001 1 shade of white is even worse

@@otesunki 0 shades of infrared is even worse

Petrik Salovaara 1. You can rotate images in much more angles, subpixel even. 2. You can avoid noise problem by droping definition down, but even 10x10@1bpp gives thausands times more variants than drops in ocean.

does the ocean have less than 10000 drops of water? 10x10 = 100... 100^2 = 10000

Petrik Salovaara probability*

"visually meaningful" would become subjective. Perspective is a thing, it can change the viewing of something that is technically the same

Raimar Lunardi Arguably, yes. The ocean is not made out of drops of water. And arguably, when ocean water forms a drop, it's no longer part of the ocean.

Richard S. PARKER SQUARES

Richard S. lol

You dare!?

@@AirIUnderwater PARKER SQUARES

The Parker Squaaaaare lol

+red13emerald I believe there is at least one more, but it's a long way up.

I'm curious whether 2048 is the highest power of 2 with only even digits. Proving or disproving that would be tricky

I found one: 0.5 I'll get my coat

mine has been running for the last 9 hours and has reached 16^280000 and not found another one yet.

16 hours in and i am at 16^370000 and taking nearly 40 seconds to go between 16^370000 and 16^370100

13:03 spoke too soon

My new favourite base :D

***** i have to disagree. base[googolplex] is a too concrete number. base[universe] can be interpreted in many different ways. the number of smallest things in a universe (atoms? smaller particles maybe?) or maybe as base[all] or even as base[1] :)

+JB “AspenForester” Lewis Always enjoy Tom's videos. This was my way of looking at the possible videos, not just the max which can exist at once.

Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed the video, as always!

Something tells me youtube's hashing algorithm will have to evolve to account for 29,368,779.7 universes worth of content... just sayin'

Google has based their business model around assuming there will eventually being extremely cheap storage, and bandwidth, so I'm assuming they have it all figured out! ;-)

I’ve already seen a cup too much of yourube

It will make every possible peppa pig ytp

Now we need to know how many of these videos would RU-vid just put down if you upload them

Why not? It'll have every yet-to-be-discovered piece of mathematics with subtitles and insanely good visuals explained by none other than Parker-Man himself.

@@Xnoob545 lol

Amadeus Lol

Speed, probably.

i think he compared the number of combinations of pixels to the number of atoms in the universe by simple division. the numbers are big but they're just floating point numbers. he's just walking us through a long thought process about what the scales of these numbers actually mean

I don't think it's too complicated. It's only multiplications and by using powers of 10 it can even be made mostly by hand

A Ga(la)xio calculator, of course.

@@kaitlyn__L 42

That could make a great book

me too!

I thought it was like a year ago

In base universe (base 10^82) numbers grow really quickly both ways, so already 0.1 in base universe is an incredibly tiny amount, funny enough pretty close to the number you wrote. :)

I know i'm late, but 0.1 in base universe is less than 0.1 in base 10... so that's an INCREDIBLY small number you just wrote. To give you an idea how many zeros would be in the equivalent in base 10: Every 0 you wrote after the "." adds 10^82 zeros in base 10. ;) So if you add your number to itself and put 1 atom in a new universe, you would've created 138 universerses before you reach 1 (and 1 in b10 is eqaul to 1 bUniverse)

@@TomGalonska well he clearly has modest prices

oof

You're right about femtohertz, but 10^12 corresponds to the tera prefix. 10^15 corresponds to peta.

Actually it's petahertz not terahertz

I guess Matt's supercomputer has a parkerhertz clock speed. ....sorry. I had to.

@@pranamd1 The electricity is Parker Squares

Now now or now 8 minutes ago?

12 minutes and 38 seconds

What even is time

abcdefg No clue man. I'm confused. I guess yeah.

+abcdefg now now

Came 1 year later to comment that

watches video ok maybe I'll try 64x64

goes to claculator ok maybe I'll try all 32×32 3 bit grayscale images

Not gonna finish either. It's 256^(64*64), which is 2^32768 possibilities, it's just insanely large.

That's still 2³²⁷⁶⁸ images, which has 9,863 digits... Even with just 2x2 every image combined gives a total of 2.1 gigabytes.

+Dow Row nope. don't try anything above 4*4 and even that is too many (even in gray scale)

*Team Mystic

*Team Valor

...good grief.

+Thisisgaming #TeamKeem

Wooooo! The other guys are schmucks!

+SuperFpac That's possible videos which can exist at once. Not total possible in theory.

Tom Scott made a Video called "Will RU-vid ever run out of IDs?"

They could just add a 64-it. With the way they select IDs they'd likely add one before that would happen. The problem is that they select them randomly, with the assumption that incidence is negligible.

+Luca Kommentarkanal that's where I got the number.

sugarfrosted They actually choose them randomly, but then the server that generated it asks every other server if it is already taken.

Clever!

***** It's not sarcasm, he's referring to the 'dare' at 6:40 in the video

If you ignore the fractional form, for which every digit is a power of two.

and it's the smallest one, all smaller negative powers of 2 end with 25

As does 2^4 = 16

Heavyboxes DIY Master these new ones are 50 shades darker

MegaMGstudios You mean 206 shades darker :)

Luke O'Reilly lmao you got that humour Freed

ty

10^15 operatikns per second, which means each operation is done in 10^-15.So hes correct anyway

+Mr Aquiles later in the video he was right, it's just the fact he said femtohertz that is incorrect

ok.Now I undestood what you meant

thats what i was wondering

It is not proven that Pi is normal, see any reputable site about maths for this

+Edward Nutt just because it's not repeating and irrational doesn't mean it contains every possible sequence. For example if we took pi and removed every instance of "12345" it would still be both irrational and not repeating. But this new number would not contain the sequence "12345".

+Edward Nutt take a look at 0.12112111211112111112...

WHAAAT? How do you know that? Are you some sort of mathologist? That's a CRAZY coincidence! :DDD

normal means that it contains all the other finite sequences inside of it. We think pi is normal but we dont know

www.bbc.co.uk/search?filter=programmes&q=festival+of+the+spoken+nerd

just approximations, the latent space isn't at this scale

Why not?

+Zacchon Mat should have said Petahertz, femtohertz are what you measure incredibly slow things in like galaxies rotating, if a computer was running at 1 femtohertz it would take 10^15 seconds to do one thing

Zacchon did you even read the comments? :/

samdude278 Oh that's true, thank you. I can't say I use bigger or smaller prefixes than tera or pico that often ;)

404NameN0tF0und No, this was one of the first comments I read.

10^(10^111) in base ten or a row of 10^109 universes.

What's the size limit of that universe?

I just took the volume of the observable universe

Frederik Tessmann I was asking Xperia347.

Base universe is a great numbering system.

it is a minute fraction of grahams number

This number is laughably tiny compared to grahams number.

+clearz It is relatively equal to zero, from G64's standpoint. As in, you haven't made any progress. At All. Graham's Number is fucking mindboggling.

Um, Samrux, no. You're not even close. It's actually equal to (mind boggling)↑(mind boggling) ;)

We are used to compare in factors. And that's usefull: if my car goes twice the normal speed it's a fast car. If it's 100 times faster it will probably burn up in the atmosphere so that's where everyday applications end. But in the world of exponents..... I'm just guessing but I bet the number of times grahams number is bigger is so large that the number of its digits would be unimaginable....

Matt is clearly very capable of a collaboration video.

Vsauce actually references Matt on at least two occasions and Michael visited Nottingham, where Parker works

What the heck is vsause?

+TheRedstoneBrony you've been missing out on a large part of RU-vid

He was making a joke about the spelling of vsauce in the original comment. -_-

clearly very capable

clearly

Trivial

Now I want a downloadable loop of "clearly very capable"

we.tl/dbWOLIsOke

+gakilb Alright! Good on you.

+standupmaths hey, uh, didn't tom Scott do the exact same thing just yesterday?

+that nerd in the corner no....

+Frostyy whoops, I meant few months ago

Chroma Spark no.

​@@suwinkhamchaiwong8382 Actually yes. He makes a lot of gross simplifications and unrealistic assumptions based on the maximum RU-vid file size (128 GB), and considers all permutations of bits in a file of said size. In reality, only certain permutations of bits in a 128 GB file will result in a valid file of a certain file type. Video file types will indicate where the video is and where the audio is, but none of his calculations about RU-vid videos take this into account.

Finitely many

There would be every meme that could ever exist

I think that's underestimating the mind blown-ness, it's more accurate to say it takes a whole universe per atom in the universe per atom in the universe per atom in the universe per atom in the universe (repeat writing this out 29 million times). Once you ran the first 13.8 billion years of RU-vid videos, one video every femtosecond, only then would you put one atom in the 2nd universe, and after running another 13.8 billion years, you could put another atom in, so you'd have to run the whole universe an entire universe of atoms number of times to fill the 2nd universe, but that lets you put only 1 atom in the 3rd universe. You then have to run 13.8 billion years to start another 1st atom in the 2nd universe, another 13.8 billion years to put the 2nd atom in the 2nd universe and so on and refill the 2nd universe with atoms all over again just to put the 2nd atom in the 3rd universe.......Just like you have to run RU-vid videos the whole universe to put 1 atom in the 2nd universe, so must you refill the whole 2nd universe for each atom you put in the 3rd. Once the 3rd universe fills up with atoms, then you can place an atom in the 4th universe, and it begins again: Run RU-vid videos 13.8 billion years -> 1 atom in 2nd universe -> whole universe of atoms in 2nd universe -> 1 atom in 3rd universe -> whole universe of atoms in 3rd universe -> 1 atom in 4th universe -> whole universe of atoms in 4th universe -> 1 atom in 5th universe.....and so on for 29 million universes. In other words, for each level of universe, you have to redo the level below it a universe of atoms number of times going back every level to the beginning just to add 1 atom.