The pi/4 polyhedron 

This is known as "Sriram's Joke", despite the fact that Joseph Young originally made this joke in this comment section 11 days ago.

Called out

@@henrysegthis is an example of Cunningham's law, where the person that a law is named after, is not the person who made the law.

Euler is just Euclid reincarnated

I get the feeling the Mesopotamians (and even the pre-Mesopotamians) knew a lot more math than we give them credit for

Basically all of Euler's work is known and available, this is impossible. Also note there is no reason for Euler to be unique, but comparing mathematicians is lame and pointless.

Ah, I didn’t realize that I never used radians apart from in the name… I think though that most of my audience knows that pi/4 radians is 45 degrees!

in a brief flash at 6:25 it's implied that the number inside the cos(...) is the same angle that he just uttered, which was "45 degrees" in speech and pi/4 in text, but this connection is not obvious to someone who doesn't know about radians at least

@@henryseg Assuming something about an internet audience is highly irresponsible, honestly. You should always structure your videos so that you can welcome people who aren't part of you regular audience. Explaining simple things like pi over 4 may be be silly for you, but it helps those watching you who don't actually know it and want to learn.

@@jjaapp18 "highly irresponsible"? Dude's just out here making the videos he wants to make; he doesn't owe us anything.

@@BeaDSM The fact you're defending ignorance shows you yourself are usually just as ignorant. Don't side with insensitivity.

I think naming things after people actually *solves* a few problems, because some things have properties that we don't understand clearly, or can't clearly be conveyed in a simple term, or the connections it has to other, subtly different things, are so far unknown, but absolutely still need an unambiguous name, and it turns out if you name things after their properties that can often be ambiguous. (however, it's also easy to name multiple things after the same person- choose another name that's still a name involved with the concept but not a description)

I think that's why a lot of people use "cosine" or "sine" or "wave" transform instead of Fourier transform, since it more accurately represents what it actually is.

@@bluesillybeard ​ What are you even saying? The unit circle is a basic geometric object and its trigonometry has been understood since antiquity.. MILLENNIA before Fourier, Pontryagin, or anyone else studied L1 functions - S1 symmetries - or LCA groups in there revealing generality. Maybe sin and cos should be named after some great ancient geometer! For what reason not? In any case, their etymology is divorced from modern English; beyond the (inaccurate) usage of co- for ‘dual.’ The mathematics behind a formal definition, or theorem, speaks for itself. No matter what goofy name someone thinks is the most intuitive thing to call it. We might as well pay respects to the giants who’s shoulders we stand on.

Think how cumbersome it would be to name things as a description of the idea itself? For example “decaying exponential kernel infinite integral” for “Laplace Transform” You usually thoroughly think things through why not this idea?

@@RozarSmacco Well, we'll usually just shorten the term into DEKII, which is now much easier to pronounce and remember. Imagine just saying, 'oh you have to do this differential equation, maybe you can just DEKII it'. It could catch on.

@@RozarSmacco It's all a part of the program described Noel Ignatiev who said, "Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed-not 'deconstructed' but destroyed."

I don't think anyone has thought about what the simplest version of this is. I know that Matthias had to make things a bit more complicated to get something that would 3D print. I imagine that Sydler put some thought into the construction - making sure that there wasn't a really easy way to do it.

its

@@Juksemakeren Ah yes, ten months ago my autocorrect was wrong.

@@callumvlex7059 sure - blame it on the machine

@@Juksemakeren I don't know why something this petty is so important to you, even if it was a human error, it was also ten months ago, dregding that up is a curious thing to .

@@callumvlex7059 k

also: "real" numbers, and the large quantities of normal/regular/etc things

and the airplane was invented by Russian genius Alexander Mozhaysky

to be fair, slavic names are hard to pronounce to everybody who can't speak a slavic language

@@davideizzo2683 Exactly the same can be said with "everybody" and "Slavic" reversed, can't it? Unless literally everybody speaks English, which I am not aware of it being the case.

@@petros_adamopoulos I was just pointing out how phonetically unique slavic names and languages are, no ill intent

@@davideizzo2683 In my opinion Slavic names are easy, and I only know English, and a little Spanish and German. The hard part is mapping the spelling to sounds, which I've found consistent. The hard part is if you know the sound but can't make it.

I also agree with the descriptive naming convention. This is why I say centigrade instead of Celsius (another dead white guy).

@@mekkler Unless you're a racist why would the race of the person even enter your mind?

@@Hogscraper since, by the looks of things (in terms of who has published works, and who things are named after), science as a whole seems to have been done EXCLUSIVELY by white European men. So it's just sort of like, saying Celsius continues that, while saying centigrade sort of separates the two, I guess.

@@mekkler, what would we call Fahrenheit? "Octoginticentigrade with duotriginti-offset" ?

I believe it's just theta can be any rational number or any rational number times pi

Every rational angle (in degrees) has algebraic sine and cosine, but the converse is not true. Look up Niven's theorem, for example.

Most likely not, Henry Segerman always makes content like this

Wherefore is "die" thought more correct to thee?

@@JNCressey die is the singular, dice is the plural

@@CaptainAwsome, dice is also singular.

@@JNCressey no it isnt

@@CaptainAwsome, why not?

Yes, they are.

The obvious solution is to encourage mathematicians to spend the time thinking about good, descriptive, not-over-used words to describe their objects. This is part of writing well, which is (should be) an integral part of being a mathematician.

@@henryseg Indeed - and it's a part of being a mathematician that is sorely neglected. Writing well is hard, and pretty orthogonal to most of the actual mathematics - but it's still important. What use is an insight if it cannot be shared?

I think this is because other fields have a narrower scope, mathematics concerns all sorts of concepts and creating a scheme to name them is a form of mathematics in and of itself, which you can find ambiguity in choosing the best one of just like all sorts of ways to view the same problem in mathematics. Look at the schism between different foundations, equivalences between different theories etc. to try to name them in a way that both would agree on requires agreeing on a further meta-foundation that subsumes both, and that just can't be done for free, but on the other hand naming it a completely meaningless- but still memorable name sidesteps that issue.

It would work, but reshaping water doesn't follow the same rules as cutting up into finitely many polyhedra and gluing them back together.

the density would change how much chemical could fit in a cube tho

Referring to your 3D calculus point, calculations are done using double and triple integrations which operate on single variables. In other words, 3D calculus is not necessarily "cutting across places" when finding volumes of curved objects, only across 1-dimensional lines. Also the Dehn Invariant is just talking about transforming shapes using finitely many cuts. I guess the concept of allowing for infinite cuts is where calculus kinda comes from, but the Dehn Invariant holds true if only a finite number of cuts is allowed.

its all fun and games till the π/4 polyhedron starts boosting power to its weapons systems.

Our name is one of the very few legacies we leave behind. If someone doesn’t have kids, this is more likely to be important to them. If you want to make a discovery and name it something random, go for it. I get that the history of this is troubled, but the mental yoga people do to satisfy their moral itches is tiring and usually pointless

Speaking of premature decisions, I think that using a power of 2 as a number base would not be a good idea at all. My 2 main arguments for this are as follows: 1. Base 6 actually has the nicest representations of simple fractions that I have ever seen. a half is 0.3, a third is 0.2, a fourth is 0.13, a fifth is 0.1111..., a sixth is 0.1, a seventh is 0.05050505... No numerical base with a power 2 can produce comparable results. Not even base 12 can compete. Base 10 is basically right in the middle. Watch "a better way to count", uploaded in 2018 by jan Misali, if you want to hear a bit more on this. 2. Powers of 2 are rarely the best answere to a problem, even when talking about computers. I will provide 2 examples. A simple example would be the sorting algorithm shellsort. When shellshort was first described, the author Donald Shell decided to use powers of 2 for determining the gap sizes at which numbers are sorted. Today we know that the powers of 2 are the worst sequence of numbers that anybody has ever used for shellsort. Most sequences that have been tried use the powers of 2 simply because of how easy they are to generate. The optimal sequence appears to be A102549: 1, 4, 10, 23, 57, 132, 301, 701, 1750 (with no further terms currently known). A more complex example comes from memory management in computers. This one is gonna be a story. First an explanation: When programers need memory, without knowing how much total memory they will actually need, they often use something called a "vector". Similar to an array, a vector holds a contigious piece of memory, but it can automatically expand its size when needed. For instance, when the vector currently has enough room for 8 elements, and you insert a 9th one, it will automatically move its content to a larger memory location. Traditionally, the new memory location will have twice the size as the old one, thus creating the powers of 2. Now for the problem: If you always double the size, you will never be able to reuse the old memory locations. The new location is forced to come after all the previous ones because it can not possibly fit in the old ones, assuming the first one was at the beginning of the computer's memory and there are no other programs running. Also note that the current memory needs to be copied to the new location before it can be reused, so this patch of memory is also out of the question. So, to be able to reuse old memory, you need a number sequence where the sum of f(i) from i=0 to n is greater than or equal to f(n+2). This is not the case for the powers of 2. For example, 1+2+4+8 is smaller than 32. (A memory of size 16 is currenlty in use, and the new one will be of size 32. Working backwards, the old memory was at most of size 1+2+4+8, which is not nearly enough.) If you were to only use multiplication with a constant, then the smallest factor you can increase f(n) by to get f(n+1) must be strictly smaller than the golden ratio. (Around 1.618) Software-engineers at facebook actually explored this problem. Many of their servers essentially have just a single, huge vector on them. They realized that a large portion of memory always remained unutilized, and so they started experimenting. In the end they chose to multiply the size of the new memory location by a factor of 1.5 (rounded down) and so managed to get more memory out of the same hardware.

Sriram's joke?

I think the modern standard form of Bernoulli's equation was actually derived by Euler if you want another example of things named for the wrong person.

@@luelou8464 We can't just name everything after Euler

Good point

The mathematical tradition is to name theorems after the second person who proved them. Otherwise they would all be called Euler's Theorem.

@@igNights77 That's not a real tradition, it's just a joke because Euler discovered so much. Nobody is actually sitting around whenever a new theorem is discovered and saying "no no, we can't name it after you, we have to wait until someone else figures it out so we can name it after them."

what if you just cut the cube in half

chill dude, you dont have to work

work for the right employer, and that is not a man, satan

then you have the peace to inspect all, not having to deal with every day worry people

including law and government, money people, they are in vain in any case

Al-Khwarizmi, presumably.

Srinivasa Ramanujan

@@SimonClarkstonegreat answer :)

I don't understand why the reference to "white men" was even made. I liked the suggestion of creating descriptive names for rules rather than using a person’s name, although this removes the honor of making the discovery from the person who did the work. Other than that I cannot condone adding 😕 the race comment to a scientific discussion. Who cares 😴 what race someone as long as they did and were credited, at the time of discovery, for the work.

@@mbterabytesjc2036 It's apparently hip to be extremely anti-white at all times. Childish.

For me that destroyed the video and channel. It was great until then, I would welcome renaming things (preferably so they aren't named after anyone). But to kick a dying race when it's already forced to be the lowest performing AND actively rejected for "diversity quotas" is beyond disgusting.

​@@lyrimetacurl0 I finally found the comment I can agree with. Can't say I ever attributed a skin tone to the name of a theorem...

The words in your username, "local", "ring", and "space", are all terms that are used to describe mathematical ideas and objects. None of them are named after people.

yeah, this is youtube. if you want to virtue-signal, go to twitter

Hes correct, and its very evident that hes correct through.

If it weren't an aside people like you probably wouldn't click on it 🤷

Another thing. Asides can exist on top of a separate video if you feel that the topic is important!