![Aaron Welson](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 73
- 174 050
Aaron Welson
เข้าร่วมเมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2013
I Played in the British Chess Championships as a Catboy [Game 2]
I Played in the British Chess Championships as a Catboy [Game 2]
มุมมอง: 63
วีดีโอ
I Played in the British Chess Championships as a Catboy [GAME 1]
มุมมอง 19821 วันที่ผ่านมา
I have a catboy addiction HELP * catboy in thumbnail is AI generated
I Played in the British Chess Championships [LAST GAME]
มุมมอง 1272 หลายเดือนก่อน
I Played in the British Chess Championships [LAST GAME]
Spending the day in Cockfield because it's Pride Month
มุมมอง 1522 หลายเดือนก่อน
Spending the day in Cockfield because it's Pride Month
I Played in the British Chess Championships [GAME 4]
มุมมอง 614 หลายเดือนก่อน
I Played in the British Chess Championships [GAME 4]
I Played in the British Chess Championships [Game 3]
มุมมอง 704 หลายเดือนก่อน
I Played in the British Chess Championships [Game 3]
I Played in the British Chess Championships [GAME 2]
มุมมอง 988 หลายเดือนก่อน
I Played in the British Chess Championships [GAME 2]
I Played in the British Chess Championship [Game 1]
มุมมอง 1949 หลายเดือนก่อน
I Played in the British Chess Championship [Game 1]
Shintoism in Anime
มุมมอง 54211 หลายเดือนก่อน
Music : Nanae Yoshimura (吉村七重) - Midare (乱れる) References & further notes : [TO BE ADDED]
Let's say, hypothetically....
มุมมอง 146ปีที่แล้ว
If you were wondering about the condition that I was describing before being rudely cut off by your interdimensional teleport to the land of Skyrim, it's called retinopathy of prematurity.
Heartless Dick | Car Seat Headrest | Ukelele Cover
มุมมอง 334ปีที่แล้ว
pls excuse my poor uke skills, I just started recently, like two weeks. Perhaps I should have waited longer, but then again its been a while since I uploaded, so thought I should go for it anyway. Enjoy :)
Now is the Best Time to Listen to City Pop
มุมมอง 722 ปีที่แล้ว
BG Music: Haruomi Hosono - Peking Duck ONP4: onp4.com/@crossingfire/~my-posts
The Predatory Wasp of the Palisades Is Out to Get Us! (Cover)
มุมมอง 972 ปีที่แล้ว
The Predatory Wasp of the Palisades Is Out to Get Us! (Cover)
A Naïve Introduction | Part 1.1, Essence of Set Theory
มุมมอง 2272 ปีที่แล้ว
A Naïve Introduction | Part 1.1, Essence of Set Theory
Introducing: The Essence of Axiomatic Set Theory
มุมมอง 1752 ปีที่แล้ว
Introducing: The Essence of Axiomatic Set Theory
Guards! Guards! - a book review 13 months in the making
มุมมอง 632 ปีที่แล้ว
Guards! Guards! - a book review 13 months in the making
How Long Does it Take to Memorize All 20 Amino Acids? [Part 2]
มุมมอง 552 ปีที่แล้ว
How Long Does it Take to Memorize All 20 Amino Acids? [Part 2]
How Long Does it Take to Memorize All 20 Amino Acids?
มุมมอง 822 ปีที่แล้ว
How Long Does it Take to Memorize All 20 Amino Acids?
Her's - Cool with you [Cover] [Piano + Vocals]
มุมมอง 1343 ปีที่แล้ว
Her's - Cool with you [Cover] [Piano Vocals]
Well, it’s not just general proof by contradiction. In constructive logic, deriving a contradiction from a positive statement to prove the negative is allowed, however a double negative does not get you the positive. But also, you lose excluded-middle arguments, where you derive a third statement from both a positive and its negative.
can you share the image at 2:23 with me please? i need to send it to a friend
@@chaoticoats I don't think I have that image anymore, buy ur free to just take a screenshot of it
bro tf is the title
He played as a catboy in the British chess championships lmao
:3
So basically, classical proofs are what you might learn in a discrete math textbook. Constructivist proofs are the intuitive ones where you construct such an object, and make more sense if you learnt coding before you learnt math.
the backing track is too loud and has to many sounds in the same registers as your voice :( cool video though!
Let x=9 and y=10. Then x+y/2=14, which is not a number between x and y
i think u did your math wrong
A constructivist and an intuitionist walks into a bar. The bartender: "This must be a joke".
what´s the music good for?
This video is so misleading. Firstly, this is a video comparing constructivist vs non-constructivist. No "classical" mathematician would prove that numbers exist in between using squeeze theorem. That proof is just forcing non-constructivism and is a pretty bad example. See the proof of the fact that irrational power of irrational numbers can be rational. In that case, a non-constructivist proof is extremely simple. Also, this video makes it seem like mathematicians just avoid constructivist math because it's difficult and hard to teach when in reality, the main problem with it is that it cannot prove a significant portion of mathematics. When I say cannot, I don't mean it is difficult, I mean it literally cannot. This was completely ignored.
I need some explanation. If we select x = 3 and y = 4 then x + y/2 is going to be 5, which is not really in between 3 and 4? Or is it actually (x + y)/2 ?
never been here before
I can imagine, not a lot of people will have lol
I'd remove the "the" in the title.
isn't the third question in the quiz a group though? it's closed since it's a cycle, it is associative, 3 is the neutral element (having 3 elements in the loop, adding 3 to n has no effect) and thus each element has an inverse (3, itself, and 1 and 2 are inverses of each other)
4y ago me was dumb, yeah third question is a group
7:24 Cries in PEMDAS
This is a good introduction, if a little light. I didn't know that Bauer's "five stages" paper was a response! Note that our construction of the mean still proceeds by axioms: x < y, so x + x < x + y < y + y by adding x and y to both sides of two copies and pasting; then, divide everything by 2 to show x < (x+y)/2 < y. We do the same steps in the proof as in the algorithm; "add x, add y, divide by 2". This is an instance of the Curry-Howard correspondence!
Either way, its fun
5:38 "ma-zo-cheest" I'm guessing you meant to say ma-zo-keest ....
the answer is simple it is impossible to construct a machine hat can simulate it's self faster then real time.this makes sense because with every step of the algorithm it has to simulate multiple steps.and because the simulator is part of the universe it has to simulate itself so it couldn't simulate the universe faster then real time.
yooo its the toby dog
mhm
Hello boyfriend <333
Fittingly my boyfriend sent me this
A big problem with the Law of Excluded Middle in mathematics is that it is uninformative. Let's say my thesis is: "either 23 divided by 45 plus 86 is equal to 286 or it isn't equal to 286." Within classical logic, this is a tautology and a perfectly valid conclusion. However, what it doesn't tell us is whether this equation does - or does not - equal 286.
All quantifier-free arithmetical sentences provably obey LEM, though...
I forgot to do noise suppression, will re-upload in a bit.. maybe
Great video! Underrated content
Another 15 Pounds Congrats!!
T'was 12 :(
@@aaronwelson that's only 3 pounds left till you can visit the Park! Stay strong 🔥
I read the question as half as hot and got -8.8C. I didn't understand you meant something else. Im not even sure what you mean now. Choosing room temperature as a midway point is arbitrary and isnt very useful. Why choose room temperature and not some other point say 100°C? I converted Celsius to Fahrenheit, divided by 2, then converted back to Celsius. 0°C =32° -8.8°... = 16°
I get that the choice of room temperature is arbitrary and a precise choice for the frame of reference to the question would require us to define what exactly we mean by 'cold'. But the problem that I see with farenheit is how would you answer the question : what is twice colder than -17.778 deg Celsius, since that would convert to 0 deg farenheit? What I like about using room temperature as a reference point is that anything below room temperature the general population will regard as cold and anything above will be regarded as hot. In this frame of reference, room temp is set to zero so when u ask what is twice colder than room temp (or half as hot as room temp) the answer is 0/2 = 0, so the answer is still room temp which makes sense because room temp has no "coldness" so there would be no effect by doubling the coldness
@@aaronwelson Okay cool. Just wondering your location as to whether you what system is used in your area, Celsius or Fahrenheit? Most of my understanding is American based Fahrenheit so maybe different areas have different conventions and thus different understanding.
@aaronwelson I see that now. I hear you. Your point was this question is ambigous and poorly worded. Please forgive this long reply as I want to address all your concerns: You state we cannot divide 0 by 2 and get usable results. That's why converting to Fahrenheit avoids this problem. Americans borrowed this customary system from Germans for exactly the reasons of avoiding 0. Placing 32 degrees as freezing gives some room before 0 is reached. It would be understood in America what twice as cold is to some extent. The big problems arise when physics or other non casual concepts are involved. I was viewing the problem from the weatherman example as being for public consumption and not higher sciences that are inaccessible to laymen. As such Fahrenheit is admittedly an unusual system such that it was invented to avoid ambiguity by making conversions between Celsius and Fahrenheit easy for boiler mechanics. There was to be an understanding of what half of 0 meant. Sadly it appears this convention did not move from applied math to the classroom. "What is twice as cold as 0 degrees Fahrenheit?" There are two methods, freezing point and pure math. Method 1 We take 64°F to be room temperature. Waters freezes at 32°F so 0°F is twice the freezing point of room temperature. Twice the freezing point is -64 so that is this answer. 32 -2(32) = -64. Method 2 0°F = -17.7...°C -32...°F =-35.5...°C It must be decided whether we are referring to scale in terms of pure math or freezing point. If freezing point is not mentioned then pure math is assumed. Method 2 is most commonly agreed upon. Method 1 takes 32°F as what you call the "middle or neutral number". On a scale it would be tare or the point at which change actually occurs from a solid to a liquid. This number is chosen because it is not arbitrary but fixed by nature. Ignoring slight differences in pressure and humidity 32°F is commonly stated as a fixed value. It does not change. In a perfect model 32°F is frozen water and anything above that liquid water. This is the dividing point for "hot" and "cold" labeled "freezing point of water at normal room pressure and humidy". Freezing point is used in some context usually non weather related such as freezing point of chemicals during the winter, use of additives to make them more stable. For example fuel can turn to jelly in exetreme cold temperatures which is why commercial trucks and airliners use fuel heaters to keep fuel from doing this. High altitudes and freezing weather can ruin a planes performance and cause it to crash, the engines stutter and so on. I read the problem as "what is half the temperature?" or as "twice as cold" meaning "twice this number". The stated metric was Celsius so expect to give the answer in Celsius. Converting Celsius to Fahrenheit is a notation trick to avoid zero from our equation. Once we arrive at the number we want we convert back to Celsius. If 0°C/2 cannot produces results converting to Fahrenheit gives us a workaround we get 32°F/2. Similarly if 0°F/2 occurs we workaround with -17.7...°C/2. Twice as cold means moving left on the number line. We can take this to be subtraction or division. If twice means multiply by 2 and colder means negation of positive direction we multiply by the reciprocal 1/2. Which turns our problem into "multiply temp by the reciprocal of 2 which is 1/2" or simply " divide temp by 2". 0°C = 32°F 0/2 °C= 32/2 °F 0/2 °C= 16°F -8.8...°C = 16°F 0°F = -17.7...°C 0°F/2 =-17.7...°C/2 -32...°F =-35.5...°C Different starting points other than 0 degrees follow similar logic.
Or you could just not watch porn..
I think it's potentially misleading to depict constructivism as a subset of classical mathematics rather than vice versa. In terms of model theory, it's more accurate to say that classical logic is a model of constructivist logic rather than the other way around, since constructivist logic is more general. That is, classical logic would never reject any constructivist proof, but constructivist logic may reject a classical proof; truths of classical logic are either true or undecidable in constructivist logic, but all truths of constructivist logic are true in classical logic.
I like.. this...content?
Removing Lem doesn't make it less, it makes it more. Constructive mathematics is a superset of mathematics.
LMAO
Halfway through, but it seems pointless and that there’s no reason we would ever want to get rid of the law of the excluded middle.
toby fox jumpscare
this is so cool! where is it?
It's called the Belmont viaduct
Unnecessary music very annoying and distracting - I'm outta here.
Actually is a common mistake to believe that in constructive (intuitionist) mathematics you can't do proofs by contradiction at all. The law of excluded middle still there in a softer form: a statement is not either true or false, but it's proved true or not proved true. If you have a proposition A that leads to a contradiction, then you have proved "Not A", even in constructive math. No problem in that. What you can't do is having a proposition "NOT A", that leads to a contradiction and therefore deduce A. This is forbidden in constructive math, because it allows the "theological proofs of existence", without show the object that is claimed to exist. That's because is not " the law of excluded middle" that is not valid, but the counternegative: "not not A", doesn't mean A. In constructive math A is true means that, using axioms, you proved A. "Not A" means that, using axioms, you proved that A can't be proved (and It couldn't be proven even if you add tailor-made axioms that do not lead to contradictions). "Not not A" doesn't mean "A" in constructive mathematics, but it means that, using axioms, you can prove that is impossible to prove that A can't be proved (even by adding tailor made axioms, without leading to a contradiction). It seems a twist tongue, isn't it? The fact that the law of excluded middle isn't valid at all in constructive math is a very common misconception that makes most people rise the eyebrow and refute to use constructive mathematics. It's not about the LEM, it's about what you mean by "true". In constructive math it means "provable", while in classical math it is thought that a statement can be true or false, but maybe not provable with the current set of axioms. That is the problem with classical logic: that metaphisical concept of truth that can trascend the system of axioms you are in.
Sorry for eventual mistakes. Typing a long comment from the phone is not ideal.
no bgm pls
I decline to hear this as the music is too loud!~
"Background" music ruined the video
Can't believe tovy fox create maths
NEW DELTARUNE LEAK LOOKIN' FIRE 🔥🔥
DF is this amazing little gem of a channel I’ve stumbled upon? Lovely content ❤
I initially thought that classical logic is a subset of constructive logic, since constructive logic has less inference rules than the classical, thus has the potential to add more non-classical inference rules. But everything accepted by constructive logic also accepted by classical logic, so constructive logic is a subset of classical logic like what this video said.
It's not that constructive mathematicians don't believe any statement is either true or false, it's rather that they just don't care. Constructive logic, as its name suggests, is not about truthness but about what you *can* construct (proofs). For instance, the "there exists" symbol in classical maths only means that there theoretically exists such an object but with no guarantee at all that you can find it. While in constructive maths, the only way you have to prove a "there exists" statement is to actually exhibit such an object. This is the same reasoning for the LEM. As a matter of fact, everything you've proven with constructive maths also stands in classical maths, but not the other way around. Having a constructive proof with you is more powerful as it just says more, so that's why you should fallback on classical proofs only when mandatory and when you only care about truth.
idk what the point of the video is but i enjoyed it also nice editing
Nice material. But instead of wasting your time with that cartoon childish nonsense, focus on your math material. You will be way more prolific.
cherry bomb in a random maths video?!??? based .,.,,,