Видео

My last two brain cells trying to comprehend this entire video: “🕺🏼🕺🏼” “what the sigmity shigma is going on?”

Pretty sure this is just called crochet.

I had a tough time following the undefined jargon towards the end. I’ve been curious about knot theory so this was very interesting.

you are a fucking genius

OMFG I'M IN ECSTASY

Shoutout to all the Furries who are fascinated by stuff like this. what? get your mind out of the gutter :3

Put rain on it.

Its look like donut i will eat this💀💀💀

for 2 players you have one die with 1 and 4, and the other die has 2 and 3.

fun fact: parity actually still exists. any time a tile goes around the center it rotates 90 degrees, which lets you keep track of parity. but what if you rotate the puzzle 90 degrees? can you solve it back to normal after rotating 90 degrees? i think it has to be an even-parity move, as doing it 5 times gets you back to the original state.

Infinity is very hard to think about, very easy to make "logical" errors with it

Wow a combination of beyblade and tom and jerry punch gun

nice

Il a résolu la quadrature du cercle 🤯

wtf is he talking about?

the string knots wouldnt get smaller and smaller because the string was thick on one end and thin on the other, if you made the string the same thickness it would not change size. the intro video is an illusion displaying false facts. if the knot itself were to keep getting smaller it would not be infinite, the smallest knot is dictated by the strings thickness, once there is no more space between the string it cannot continue unless the string ALSO gets infinitely thinner. that was a horrible fake example. there are no knots that infinitely get smaller unless youre using an infinitely small string. which by its own logic cant even exist.

Please make more of these

Just shake the slip knot to untie it

Isn’t the Universe wonderful!

The more point-like the light source the less fuzzy will be the edge regions.

This video feels like is a movie long and is boring but very interesting

Like fr 😑

Well done. ❤

This is brilliant. Thank you for making this video about Impossible triangles!

it’s SO COOL

And to think... I spent my weekend trying to get a perfect swirl of Easy-Cheez on a Triscuit.

i feel like this is more a demonstration of the limits of the definitions used and how they're applied, rather than proving that the infinite knot is not the unknot.

I understood everything until he said "This knot is wild"

Glass/transparent paterial or maybe strings?

someone should make a clear D120 and fill it almost full with water, the little air bubble at the top would make it easier to tell what you rolled

Harmonic relationships came to mind, particularly those involving ratios of small integers.

Very cool, and pretty too. Almost looks as if it's squishing, until you look more closely.

I instantly recognized the cube tree pattern. I've been playing with variations that imply a Sierpinski Triangle (what I call a ternary cube tree). In fact, I have a new one that I've been putting many hours into. I should be posting vids (on top of the ones I've already posted) within a couple of weeks, if I can just stop tweaking the damn things.

Hi, Henry! Where did you get those magnetic rope ends? Or did you make them? Thanks!

Imagine seeing tgis on a 3 veiw with no isometric

Looking at any one "major" site, having 6 heighbors. It's like spherical packing, but of wavefronts on the surface of the sphere. What is the frequency of the primary oscillations with respect to n? Edited: Mod 3, I see now

I just received my set of OptiDice, which inspired me to check how numerically balanced the rest of my dice were. I was shocked how other than OptiDice, every dice set has 5-8 on the same side of the d8 and 7-12 on the same side of the d12. And a few sets didn't even make sure opposite sides added to 9 or 13 (respectively)! Numerical balancing needs to become the standard.

I think if we stop naming things after people, that does more harm than good. The core problem is the naming bias, not the practice itself. Trying to give names like the "length-angle invariant" will inevitably become ambiguous when additional such invariants are discovered, and they'll also invariably lead to proliferation of acronyms, which suck. I'm also not a believer that the person's name necessarily always needs to be the very first person who discovered a concept. If someone else did important work studying, expanding, or popularizing it, that can be as important as the initial discovery.

All the idiots that were fooled into thinking the flat planes were icosahedra…

so youre like a fractal expert? cooooool

Genetically superior d4

One thing that jumped out to me is the difference between infinite processes and infinite states. 0.9... is 1 because it's not an infinite process of something writing the number 9 on end, merely approaching 1, but every single infinite 9 is already present. However, the issue with the infinite slip knot is you can't undo all of it at once. You have to undo one slip before you can undo the next. IDK if that is actually accurate, but is one of the ways I parse infinities

this is so fascinating

A bit flat, so no intuition gained on how the wild slipknot might not pull out (or require an ordered complement.)

is there a model where lengths aren't distorted (regardless of angles)

i liked this vid and its niche but versatile concept. the music was a little distracting for me. I can tell its intended implemented was to be non-distracting, so i thought this feedback might be helpful. not subscribed but looking forward to the next niche concept!

Has anyone tried to make 4 dimensional Archimedian solids?

As someone who doesn't understand group theory at all, I love the idea that group theory links so many totally disparate concepts. Does this mean you can create a knot that retains the symmetry operations of each of the 219 space groups for 3d crystals?