The mathematics of love | Hannah Fry 

People laugh at it, but only a few... so it doesn’t get picked up by the mic.

I don't get why people are keep saying this on TED, you can hear the laughters pretty easily with headphones on

The crowd is laughing, it's just not picked up by the microphones very well.

American audience would not understand "minger" ( unattractive woman in UK slang) and many other quips she makes to jazz up her maths driven lecture.

@@davis7099 I got it it wasn't very hard to understand

Partner is equal to a toilet

If I remember correctly it was also Hannah who was featured in that video

I am pretty sure the original name of the problem is called "the secretary problem"

@@steff7395 yeah i remember that 2

as a clerks fan every time I see the number 37 I have to say " in a row!!"

The person with the highest attractiveness rating receives only 25. I guess people are scared of how good looking that person is.

The upper part of the chart are all girls and the bottom of the chart are all man.

You look attractive, how is going you?

@@ALFABETAS999 You do make a good point, it would be interesting to see the charts split up in gender.

@@miriamkorver1443 the studies of cupid was only about female ratings given by men

Well the fact you find this so interesting as a professional, says a lot about your field and your poor lack of dating psychology.

DannyboyRFC06 ?

hahaah, i have 22, and nothing to tell you haahah

20 would be more likely, if you want to take a round number.

@@miriamkorver1443 I prefer symmetrical like 69. that's a good age to start.

@@paulgoogol2652 that's not symmetrical though

I can't believe nobody laughed at the Piers Morgan burn.

I think the audience does not know what the topic will be? This way you can broaden your horizon and go see a math talk even if you usually don't like math. I think that is how TED works.

Oh for Christ sake stop being pretentious. "Hurr durrr they should be a higher caliber of person durrrr." Obnoxious.

I thought it was only wealthy and 'well-to-do' people, which you can buy an education, but you cannot buy intellect. Well, until we get Crisper Genetic super babies.

markog1999 Well if love is zero, then it can be rational :)

I see what you did there ... I'm slowly clapping to you...

i'm laughing so hard for this

Rules are like hearts.Made to be broken ;-)

dowddash Let's just hope that the other person knows nothing about this theory.

Story of my life.

That's makes a really interesting question actually - Within a group of agents who are each searching for an optimal other agent within the same group, what's the optimal search strategy. is it still the 37% rule?

@@za012345678998765432 37% rule works like this: With no other information, Given (N) number of options with a single unique(?) nonnegative parameter that is want to be maximized, Optimal search (or optimal stopping point, hence the name optimal stopping theory) is to 1) take (N*(1/e)) = N*(37%) of the options, ( where e = 2.7182 is eulers number) consider it as sample set and find the best option in them. 2) Then, you start looking at other options and stop when you find a better option than the one your sample set gave. 3) Fun trivia: This method gives you the best option of all the options with a probability of (1/e) = 37% For example, think you are choosing a random team in Fifa and you only care the star ratings they have, Now you can apply the "37% rule" to get the best team with 37% probability. But, your info is not limited with the star ratings only. You know that 5 star is the max. So, if you happen to get a 5 star team in any point of applying the rule, you can stop at that point, including "sample collection" In your question, If "being within the group" does not provide additional info, for ex, you know agent 007 is the best and you picked him similar to above case, then you can apply the "37% rule" to get the best agent with 37% probability.

+Tobi Areje i was wondering the same too, I'm not even British but I was so confused why I was laughing by myself while the audience was dead silent.

+Tobi Areje I see a wedding ring on her left hand.

Richard Brand Well spotted

+Tobi Areje She also says it in the presentation...

ImKrazyFrench Well heard

Finally someone speaks the truth and no one ever replied .. for four years.

lastmiles delete your damn comment and I will too

Lol

Cute and attractive yes. "Smoking hot?" Ehh...

@@johnroscoe2406 definitely yes!!!

Yeah she gets around if know what I mean haha

And Head Squeeze

Numberphile shoutout! If anyone who watched this video got more interested in Mathematics, I highly recommend you give the Numberphile channel a look! You might find yourself among a family you never knew you had =)

V& b

Oof. When you said "0" I felt that

It’s 37% of the time period you want to spend on finding a partner, so 0 would mean you wanna get married for life this instant xD With that said, I totally feel you, bro

Lmao

You only need three people. Reject the first one (the first 33%) and marry the second, but if you meant valid as in precise it would be harder.

simppp

I love her, too. I challenge you to a duel!

sus

Yes but will it result in more frogs being kissed by princesses.....rivit...rivit....

Shawn Ravenfire Very original analogy there my friend. I mean, its not like a similar analogy was used to explain why we shouldn't analyse humor by the author E.B. White.

Patrick McNerney It's a common expression.

+Shawn Ravenfire Bit like every TED talk, they all appear boring until you watch them...

That's not how the expression goes... Short proof: dissecting a frog *does* make you learn.

Microphones record her better than the audience. You can hear laughs, they're just recorded poorly

@@chopun3862 A few times you could hear the laugh audience loud and clear but other times you couldn't really hear anything so I don't think that's the case. I did find her jokes funny, though.

@@Carbon_Crow you're wrong.

@@chopun3862 could you be more specific?

@@Carbon_Crow nah just wanted to be obtuse ok RU-vid. It's quite fun. I see why the trolls do it ...

Yes!

That’s a really good point. I think what you are talking about is called ‘survivorship bias’.

That joke is so Derivative :-)

That's the best way to make sure there's no divide between us

PC culture

@@lvseka I didn't get it. Maybe knowing about the situation helps.

@@lvseka 🙄 No, sounded like she was in America. Fewer Americans are likely to know anything about Piers Morgan, and so fewer people have the context for the joke.

She was talking to a tough crowd

You aint fucked blad just keep putting yourself out there

Not till your 7 and twenty, bud

Find a hobby, go dancing.

Matt Parker is a mathematician and also and stand up comedy, if you like to know someone like that.

@TurboCMinusMinus You swallowed a lot of hot air with that red pill...

TurboCMinusMinus Oh dear, you are truly a very sad existence...

You'd have to pick a year at which you're going to stop dating, and then only go on a certain number of dates per year so you can keep track. So it's not too realistic in practice, haha.

Isn't it thirty-seven percent of the time you'd spend dating? Say you start at 15 and you intend to be married at 35. Then at age 21 you should expect to meet the "perfect person"

@@shanineedwards6894 How does that work if you were already married to the perfect person and they passed? And you start again at nearly 40.

@@shanineedwards6894 this assumes a constant rate of dates per year. But in application this theory should only be taken as a rough estimate. That's why physics is actually working most of the time. Absolute precision is not needed most of the time

@@kudosbudo It would apply to your next dating pool - don't include your previous dating pool.

Ooops! ten years too late, now I will be eaten by cats and die alone.