My response to being reverse-Dereked 

2nd channel-ception

I like to think you (Destin) were on your main channel when you saw this but decided to swap over to your second channel to comment, just for the "second channel-ception".

2nd channel got their back.

@@reububble nope sorry, was logged in on SED2

@@SmarterEveryDay2 Hi Destin nice to meet you on a comment section 😄

Did you mean to say Matt errors?

@@cossaertom That would seem like a Parker square of an error

@@cossaertom that would just be a book of spelling errors 😂

people know what they do.

@@cossaertom That would be more of an encyclopedia then

This made me smile

No checkmark? 🙃

Notch?

@@Twosies20 because it’s not Notch

@@rws531 It is. That's his youtube channel. He's posted some of his other programming experiments there.

Could be used as the definition of nit-picking.

That got me laughing so hard XD

We'll call it a draw!

That was funny, but I think in just a teasing manner, like "two can play at this corrections game." I think they both know Veritasium was right on that; because, when one only shows one significant digit, rounding it is the best, accepted way. It's the power of ten that is important. I prefer scientific notation, "7.8 E-31".

Yeah, it’s “funny” because he know that it’s a really weak “correction”

I think my friend @@concinnity9676 meant 7.9 * 10⁻³¹ I mean if you're going to show 2 significant numbers rounding is the best accepted way 😉

Parker Correction gets my vote!

I *immediately* though of a montage similar to that of the Parker Square. We need Brady on this.

derek now got parkered xD

I also thought of "Parker Correction" but do we want to save that for when you attempt to correct someone else's mistake, and your correction is *almost* correct, but not quite?

@@Anytus2007 That's already called "incorrecting" someone in my lexicon so I didn't think about that :P But since Matt was fully aware of the almost-perfect nature of the square when making it, I'd say almost correcting someone but not quite correcting them on purpose is closer to the intent

I found Derek's call-out of the mistake quite arrogant. Matt's jab at the digit is humourous in comparison

@Squant Like you just now?

@@EntropicTroponin It's arrogant? What? He was pursuing the truth, nothing more, nothing less. You'd be a fool to think there was any bad blood or ill intent in that correction.

🤣🤣😆😆

@@jeremiahsmith8499 the ol fake beef between YT content creators. Never gets old

Derek played the reverse card on Matt and Matt played one right back with his "Your calculation is 1% off." But Derek had nothing but a wild card left so he won anyway.

didn't matt get matted anyway , dereking was a different thing

Does reverse-reverse-Dereked cancels out to just Dereked?

would that not be reverse-Dereked-reversed (Why do I feel like Sheldon cooper is about to appear and correct us all :D).

@@madmaveric It's Dereks all the way down.

Amazing

In the off-chance this isn't obvious - ignore that spam message...

@@NeatNit No, don't ignore it, report it! With prejudice !!

@@Soken50 Oh, I do, but that doesn't actually do anything! Comment scams don't lose Google any money so they don't bother to do anything about them.

@@Soken50 ueah

This feels like it has the potential to become the maths analogue of Uncle Roger and Jamie Oliver

That's just the nature of maths. There is no back and forth, if you're proven wrong it is definitive. There are no shades of grey or 'different perspectives' or 'a context' to consider. Just the plain cold truth.

idk people got pretty fired up about the -1/12 thing

@@dekippiesip So long as you can agree on axioms and definitions, which isn't as common as people might think.

flammablemath tho

The news used to have to do this as well.

They do... 3 days later on page 47, after everyone has moved on and in a place no one sees.

Where is it here?

can you send me his number not like i'll spam him or anything, really

@@proloycodes ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-E6Kh3ayh1LA.html

that's as big of a mistake as saying pi = 3.142

@@stephenkamenar Yes, and we will not be silenced!

@@stephenkamenar Well, not exactly. The mistake of saying pi = 3.142 is orders of magnitude bigger than Derek's mistake. Will I state exactly how many orders of magnitude? No, because then I might be making an even bigger mistake. 😛

He could've found much more, but maybe he was trying to be nice. Derek, as he increasingly tends to do these days, muddled up a lot of details in his explanation. He gave the right answers, but for poorly communicated reasons. For example, the two copies of 100! that cancel each other out (one in the numerator and the other in the denominator) have very different meanings, which is a subtlety he should have better clarified. And worse, he did the calculation for a loop containing all of the objects, and then nonchalantly stated that the same works for any subset of the objects. Let alone mentioning that it works only for more than half of the total, it is poor communication even to take his edge case calculation and apply it to the interior cases without inspection.

Off by one errors can be super disastrous.

fantastic comment

Yeah, I always wish I knew where Matt gets his shirts.

Technically one is Canadian, but yes

Meh all commonwealth anyway

@@ThisMoose But lived in Australia long enough to qualify.

Our winters aren't that bad... *cries in every place I visit on the east coast of Australia getting several hundred millimetres of rain and flooding*

Pretty sure Matt is British

I totally agree with you here.. that positive note is what we all should follow in my opinion. When I watched Derek mentioning Matt, I felt that as positive feedback and free advertisement immediately. I love watching both streams, Derek for his ways of bringing various messages, and Matt for his awesome way of explaining math as an expert. I'll continue watching both ;)

He loves clickbait, he even admits it. So he says something controversial, which will spark discussion, which gives him more views and an excuse to make a follow-up video. All for that sweet cash. Honestly, I find him more and more annoying.

Honestly, it's one of the reasons I like his channel. The deep dives other creators make while trying to correct, or confirm, his videos end up providing excellent explanations of otherwise difficult topics and different approaches to problem solving. Plus, it shows in pseudo real-time the way science actually works.

@@Pulsar77 That's why I unsubbed from him a while ago.

@@Pulsar77 its annoying if you go into his videos expecting a scientist or a mathematician or a logician. veritasium is a performance intended to reach more people, because being purely scientific is more interesting to fewer people. inviting discussion allows those smaller and more niche youtubers to reach more people through his pop-science channel

I don't think he was correct at all and the only way he was able to claim to have been right is to have framed the question as vauge as he could, and then retconned in the actual answer after he was called out for an incorrect video that wasn't even convincing. Knowing that there's a big difference between the amount of power the light gets instantly and after a second, the only way to salvage it is to make assumptions not presented in the original video. Assuming that the light bulb isn't dimmable, which is what most people think of when there's a light bulb in a problem, then he would have been totally wrong. Veritasium has always been obnoxious and I've never felt like I've enjoyed learning anything from that channel.

Nice spot!

@@lolzold4 Thanks!

Not to mention the flurry of videos around Dirk (of Veriistablium* fame) and his video explaining the Poynting Vector. *Acknowledgments to CGP and Brady and their H.I. podcasts

except there was nothing wrong with the sailing video, people just couldn't accept it...

Isn't getting dereked when you are in the process of creating a video but someone (often times Derek) gets a video on the same topic out earlier, so you make your original video and in that point out a little mistake?

Yet he was correct in every one of them, even doing thorough experiments to show those that didn't accept them that he was indeed right.

@@GamezGuru1 Nothing wrong with the electricity one either but EEs are still raging mad about it lol

This is brilliant I hope Matt sees it.

Regarding going metric: YES! It has been time to do that for decades!

What happens to players who are 5' 11". Are they converted to 5.11 ft (5' 1" - rounded) :-) PS Going metric completely. Metric time and the French Revolution is worth reading about.

It's not just the WTA, Barney Ronay wrote an article for the Guardian on 29th June 2022 where he states Emma has a disadvantage at 5'7". Perpetuating the error.

Regarding going metric, imperial unit countries could adopt the SI prefixes without completely giving up on the imperial units. Just pick one unit for each dimension (length, mass, volume, etc.) and start using the SI prefixes with it. For example you can have nanofeet, microfeet, millifeet, centifeet, decifeet, feet, decafeet, hectofeet, kilofeet, megafeet, etc. This would have the advantage that citizens don't have to suddenly get used to units they rarely (if ever) used in their lives, but gets rid of the non-decimal unit conversions which is probably the source of most errors when using imperial units. This also makes it easier to transition to the metric units because then only one conversion factor is needed per dimension.

Have you found AlphaPhoenix as well? It's a great channel, I highly recommend it!

Also check Tech Ingredients and Applied Science for more practical science/engineering content ;)

@@triffid0hunter Practical Engineer is really good, from a civil engineer perspective. I legit learn things watching his channel, and his more recent (and relatively new to his channel) current events videos have been fascinating.

For me it's that this number is unperceivably small. The smallest correction I've ever heard of. 1.114E−32 to be precise. It get's very close to the smallest physically reasonable unit of length we have which is the Planck length which is 1.6E-35 meters. (apparently attempting to measure any shorter distance would create a black hole)

is he not canadian?

...Derek that is..

@@onwardandupward2345 Born in Australia, raised in Canada. His parents have pretty thick Aussie accents.

Make sure you're the last the spot a mistake to flex your intelect.

It's "VeriSTABlium" 😉😇 Anyhow, hi "fellow Tim"!

Take your upvote, Tim... ;-)

I miss the Timfoolery

@@jmacd8817 Hi back, to you! And I'm a bassist, too.

If he just had the same attention to accuracy :)

And I’ll pass on the LCS.

HI 👋 That does seem like something that Dirk from Veristablium would do…

@@diggoran If you sign yourself up to the OpenAI beta, you can use their Playground to have the GPT3 algorithm list a stack of Dirk from Veristablium variations. Just give it a few you knew in a list, but also include “Dr”, “Derek”, “Muller” and “Dirk” in the restricted words list so that it doesn’t start giving you a bunch of repeats that don’t match the pattern.

Yeah, the video has behaving strange for me, but I managed to watch it Edit: just a coincidence, I think the RU-vid app bugged.

I've not touched it. Must be RU-vid still caching it etc.

I get a lot of buffering and codec rendering issues on the Android app, pausing and minimizing tends to do the trick, at least if the video is all artifacted right after an ad (it's always an ad that breaks the codec into smeary rainbow pixels). I have issues maintaining wifi connection from upstairs sometimes, but RU-vid is losing connection and coming back online waaay more often than I have issues with in other apps. It's just not very stable. Google seems to keep "fixing" things that weren't broken.

I'm reporting that Matt failing to tag you in a correction needs correcting, and therefore I expect to be tagged in a correction. I await my reward.

Sure but what if my permutation is shifting all cards by one? (in box 1 there's card number 2, etc). This is a loop of length 100, and just by adding 5 (or any other offset except 99) the loop still exists. "This is my friend Derek, and what I think he meant to say is, all the prisoners need to remember a whole new permutation, and compose it with the given permutation" If they use some generic rule instead of another permutation, the malicious guard can construct the permutation to have big loops after the rule. If the guard doesn't know the offset they're planning to add then the 100-loop won't work, but probably there's a permutation which foils every addition.

@@AssemblyWizard But it may not be a single loop. Think of a loop 1->2->3->4->1 of length 4. I am not sure what Derek meant by "shift by 5" but let's imagine a "shift by 1" here. Prisoner 1 goes to box one, opens it, sees 2, and shifts by 1: result 3. They then go to box 3, open it, sees 4, shifts by 1 (cyclically): result 1. So we get 1->3->1. But crucially this strategy never opens the liberating box 4. So I am confused by what he might have meant by this. You can easily doctor a permutation (in this case in effect squaring it) to make a permutation with shorter cycles (in this case 2 of length 2 rather than 1 of length 4) but you need a way to do this and lead each prisoner to the box with their number in it. You could instead "shift by 1" by first opening box 2, seeing 3; then opening box 4 and see 1. As long as the number of prisoners isn't prime this would always reduce the length. But there are other modifications possible. So there is lots of latitude for investigating this as a game.

@@thelivetoad The "add 1" is adding 1 to each box. The visual given was the first prisoner physically relabeling each box, then using the original strategy. So, the prisoner would first check box "1" (formerly known as box 100), then if that box contained a 6, he'd move on to box "6" (previously known as box 5), etc. This effectively randomizes the contents of each box, undoing the warden's sabotage.

@@bennettpalmer1741 Well, any permutation of the labels will only result in the same cycle structure as before, so it cannot undo the warden's counterstrategy. Again, the main issue is "is there a cycle of length greater than 1/2 the number of prisoners". If yes then any relabeling maintains that reality. Some prisoner will be in that cycle. One of the ways of implementing the "shift by x" strategy (the second one I described above) would in effect traverse a positive power of the permutation. If prisoner y's number is in a cycle of length L then a power of that by a divisor D of L will reduce it to D cycles of lengths L/D. Of course you don't know the length of the cycle that contains your number and at any rate you have to make sure to implement such a strategy so that your number is in the cycle you end up traversing. (See my first example above.) The beauty of the original strategy was that by starting at the box labeled with your number you'd traverse a cycle guaranteed to contain the box with your number in it. Remember, the warden will not release you if you al find a box with a relabeled version of your numbers -- you have to find the box with your number in it as put there by the warden.

@@thelivetoad Let's just create a hypothetical scenario. Box 1->3 Box 2 ->4 Box 3->1 Box 4->5 Box 5->2. We have two cycles, 1-3-1, and 2-4-5-2. If we add 1 to all the box totals, we get Box (5+1=)1->2 Box (1+1=)2->3 Box (2+1=)3->4 Box (3+1=)4->1 Box (4+1=)5->5. We have 1-2-3-4-1 and 5-5. The cycle structure has changed.