วีดีโอ

Excellent

找朋友买了几百USDT，他给我一串代码e95295df4634a8e08e2a505b89339757ccebc4ea5e87b567140dc9aa09530f83是什么意思，怎么搞啊，怎么转到OKX

What a great lecture!

I'm glad 65% of math profs want to be better teachers, but horrified that 35% don't even want to be. That's trouble for 1/3 of our students off the bat.

this man had the concept of a vehicle with a trailer burned into his brain at the age of like 6 and he is leaving behind everyone who didnt

@3:50 the matrix rep. is not fundamental, so is not the natural way to "see" non-commutative algebra. The natural (basis independent) way is to use a _real_ Clifford algebra, which arises naturally from inner and outer products and summing them to define a mixed grade geometric product. Rotations follow from rotor sandwich products and all good things thereafter. I'm a non-practicing disciple of Misha Gromov: "Matrrriceeees are shhtupeed."

Great talk with an absolutely bizarre ending. I hope security was keeping a close eye on that guy as he hugged Gunnar. So weird.

16:43 “eigenvectors give you the fundamental modes of vibration of that object” what does that mean?

Metamath?

Man i hope ai doesn’t replace us , i would be more than happy to have it write proofs alongside us and help us tho

Terry Tao, the only public speaker who speaks fast enough

It's CISCO and it's a matroid, I'd think. But then... there's a "magical config" on this "router." :)

Great lecture 🙂

96 is not equal to 4 times 23.

27:10 42:00

How does Dr. Tao find the time to teach, write papers and books, assist other researchers with THEIR PROBLEMS and on top of all that, be able to prepare for these talks? He's amazing!

Braid groups can be visualized as strings that are braided together. Artin groups can also be described algebraically through presentations. Artin groups can also be studied geometrically. One way to do this is by associating them with configuration spaces❤❤❤

Proof formalization resembles computer programming in several ways: * Precise Language: Both require the use of a precise, formal language to express ideas. In programming, this is a programming language like Python or Java. In proof formalization, it's a logical language like Coq or Lean. * Rigorous Structure: Both involve constructing a sequence of steps that follow strict rules. In programming, these steps are instructions for the computer. In proof formalization, they are logical deductions. * Verification: Both can be verified by a machine. In programming, a compiler or interpreter checks if code follows the language's syntax and semantics. In proof formalization, a proof assistant checks if the proof is logically sound. * Abstraction: Both involve the use of abstraction to manage complexity. In programming, functions and classes group code into reusable units. In proof formalization, lemmas and theorems encapsulate smaller proofs within larger ones. However, there are also some key differences: * Goal: The goal of programming is to create software that performs a specific task. The goal of proof formalization is to establish the truth of a mathematical statement. * Creativity: Programming often involves creative problem-solving and design choices. Proof formalization is more focused on rigorous logical deduction. * Audience: Programs are meant to be executed by computers. Formal proofs are meant to be read and understood by humans (and checked by computers).

1:00

Great presentation! I learned a lot!

Nathan also appeared on “500 Questions”, but because he failed to complete a round, he wasn’t sent home with any money. On “Jeopardy!”, he won the tiebreaker, and plans on seeing Nathan go on a long run never materialized when 19-Day Champion: Jason Zuffranieri destroyed him in Jason’s 1st ever appearance. Still, he was sent home with $21,600. That’s something.

Starts at 3:34

@23:00 did he say "surprising" and "magic"? It should not be. The ℂ numbers are an ℝ structure in the Clifford algebras. So what goes on in the "ℂ plane" is always related to real-valued bivector algebra (the generators of rotations). For curves in ℝ^3 I believe the parameterization problem is related to the fact SO(3) is not simply connected, I guess, plz fact-check me.

@54:00 "automating human intuition" makes no sense. Simulating creativity makes sense. The question is, how or why are human "creative leaps" not merely also simulations? The answer goes back to Nagel (among many illustrious predecessors) which is that intuition connotes subjective qualia, and you cannot simulate the raw qualia of "What is it like to be X?" for any X. You have to actually be X. But simulating creativity, while a useful tool, is not the same process, it is fundamentally constrained by prior information, while presumably human minds are not, we can think in abstract terms and originate entirely new ideas (albeit rarely). (Materialists would disagree, but... I won't give them the time of day.)

Such an inspiring, humane and forward thinking discussion. Wonderful Q&A too.

道可道也 非恒道也 名可名也 非恒名也 [5 4 5/9 7, 3/2 6 5 7, 3 4 3/7 7, 5/2 6 3 7] 无名 萬物之始也 有名 萬物之母也 [5 4, 7 5 5 2 7, 3 4, 7 5 5 4 7] 恒无欲也 以觀其眇 恒有欲也 以觀其所噭 [6 5 2 7, 9 7 3 2, 6 3 2 7, 9 7 3 4] 兩者同出 異名同胃 玄之又玄 衆眇之門 [8 4 7 9, 8 8 7 7, 2 5 3 2, 7 5 5 4]

This is really helpfull as an undergrad who's into combinatorics, but can't take advanced coursed like this at college

Oh this is so good.

I'm glad that I'm at a point where I get hyped to see an influential academic talk about a cool subject than a musician sing their album back with poor audio quality

Thanks!

so good

I suspect you might find this more enlightening

Wow! Such a great lecture!

thank you. mr. tao speaks perfectly well! the haters havent watched a single minute of this video.

Straight to the point: Excellent.

4:34 The talk starts

Welcome to Dumb Mathematics

'Promosm' ❤️

Woah. Woah. WOAH. This guy just said "in the 1980s my salary as a postdoc was $23000". MY salary NOW as a postdoc is $23000. F*CK YOU ALL

So interesting, thank you!

great lecture! And thanks for giving the credit to Jih-Jie Chang, a female pioneer who should also be remembered.

Just came across this as a current Emory student. Dr. Dean making us proud as always!!

Dumb questions at the end

Historical talk. This will go down as a turning point in mathematics

0:23 ...You learn something every day, lol...I didn't realize graph theory was part of combinatorics...but when you think about it, lol...

"The guy who makes Numberphile" lol. I know he knows his name is Brady but it was just funny to hear this

Nice to watch the gentleman David Eisenbud's introduction to the no less nicer (and pretty ;-) ) Holly Krieger :-) You are both numberphile stars , aren't you ? :-) @4:30 funny basics ! .. (gasp)..I watch a little longer to be sure ;-)

Alternate speach: You all know who terence tao is, so here he is.

Is Terry Tao the machine?

Bressman's mixing conjecture 47:30