Video

I will not call it budha, i will call it Chtulhu (with two more tiles on each side)

Thank you, Sir Roger! ❤🙏❤

If you want a new idea: open an old book. Such a delight to hear from Roger Penrose.

12:42 "there's a link on the webpage i shared earlier". Wouldn't it be more fair if you could add a link to this site and library in the video description? Please?

I miss you my dear friend! R.I.P

I understand Conway was brilliant, and I can see that his manner is ingratiating, but I have never seen him lecture in a coherent, organized way. This lecture is hilarious. 10 minutes into the video, someone thought, "Hmmm. Maybe I better move the camera?" Anyone know why the Prof. sang "Boron?" He promised to explain, but never did. And no, I have no idea what chemical pi is. Maybe something like Cottleston pie?

❤❤❤❤❤

I was hoping that one of the methods you showed would be using Archimedean Spiral

I wonder if these shapes could be applied to fractals. I am reminded of Mandelbrot. How everything is eternally connected.

great but sooo quiet

There are no deities in Buddhism. Buddha was a human who got enlightened and became a teacher.

Amazing talk! ❤

Such an inspirational man.

excellent. where can we learn more about this stuff?

Rest in Peace you wonderful man.

Loved the book!

Professor Kauffman's lecture is generative and I appreciate it.💓\^^/ ① The Lorentz transformation associated with movement within a quantum or space is composed of a Pauli spin matrix, which is the same as the movement of the robot arm Reidemeister 1. ②The octonion of John Thomas Graves with a direction is the movement of Reidemeister 1, 2 and 3 by Joyce's quandle, which is the same as the movement of a robot manipulator to knit without getting tangled with the thread and cutting it. It understands the movement of knitting sticks and can respond to the movement of spinning a hanging ball.

He so smart, most Crowds can’t keep up and just don’t get it!

I wish I had tutorials for all these beautiful patterns 😅

44:05 I think there is a requirement that the path isn't itself mirror-symmetric, right? Anything else ought to work so long as it doesn't accidentally introduce a new tiling somehow, which would be crazy

In the first example, how is the mark on the straightedge to be determined?

Here’s because of George’s hidden fairy castle log from TikTok! So fricking cool!

❤❤❤❤

❤

❤🙏❤🙏❤

I like that Ein Stein in German can be translated to "One Tile".

I'll be honest. Tom7 and this guy are pretty much the reasons I'm into type

behold pikachu einstein tile czcams.com/users/shortsPOkEs2t0h3g

Hi!

Fabulous interview and amazing to see the extent the Puzzle Palace had achieved before heading for Italy. Looking forward to spending some time in the future there and seeing the many different categories of puzzles. What a treasure trove of "sweets" George and Roxanne have amassed and made into a worldwide resource for all concerned. Congratulations to you both

Very Concise, to bad about the mistake in the octonions talk it just confused things more. I'm sure the Grad student that created the slides got a good talking to. (even though he took responsibility for the errors )

How does this have so few views - Hotcrystal0 from the forums

its so cool to envision the mandlebrot set and these tiles combining to create realtime construction and infinite scope lenses with Ising models.

As if quaternions weren't enough, they start asking for the octonions.

Few remember that the problem, as presented here, isn't the original problem. It is one _implementation_ of the problem, proposed by Adam Elga in 2000, that he used to justify the thirder solution as presented around 3:15. The actual problem simply states that SB will be wakened once, or twice, based on the coin flip. Elga "subdivided" the Tails event into two that he felt he could treat independently. Halfers disagree, and the debate centers on that issue, not the actual problem. This presentation, in my opinion, is just an equivocation that attempts to justify both sides of that debate at the same time. And it is wrong: the question asks about a past event, as viewed in the present. Say I draw a card from a standard deck, and tell you that it is a red card. Whether I ask you for the probability that I now hold the Ace of Hearts, or that I drew the Ace of Hearts, the answer is 1/26. There is a better way to implement the SB problem. One that produces a clear, unequivocal answer. Yet I still don't expect everyone to believe it; like the Monty Hall Problem, people like to stick to their original answer. On Sunday Night, flip two coins: C1 and C2. On Monday Morning perform this "internal experiment" : (1) If either coin is currently showing Tails, wake SB; otherwise, end the internal experiment. (2) Ask SB for her "degree of certainty" that coin C1 is currently showing Heads. (3) After SB answers, put he back to sleep with amnesia' But then, on Monday night after SB falls (or still is) asleep, _turn_ _coin_ _C2_ _over._ And repeat the same "internal experiment" on Tuesday. Before looking for an answer, note that (A) on either day, coin C1 is currently showing the same face that it landed showing, (B) If coin C2 lands on Tails, the two-day procedure is the same as in the video, and (C) If coin C2 lands on Heads, it is equivalent since it just changes the day SB might sleep through. From (A) we see that there is no ambiguity about the tense of the question, and from (B) and (C) we see that its answer must be the same as the better-remembered version. But this can be answered, since SB has full knowledge of the "internal experiment." When the coins were examined in step 1, there were four equally-likely combinations: HH, HT, TH, and TT. But the fact that SB is awake, and in step 2, means that HH is eliminated. The remaining three possibilities include only one where C1 is showing Heads. The answer is 1/3. The reason Halfers get a different answer, is that they only consider the "external experiment" where the two wakings SB experiences if C1 lands on Tails are the same event. This has nothing to do with "importing" or "time wrapping." It is failing to acknowledge that SB's experiences don't allow her to see those two wakings as the same event.

Great talk! Is it possible to get a pdf of the slides?

Fantastic job! Would be great if you could add a 4-colours scheme!

Interesting thoughts on the egg of Columbus. The Italian architect Brunelleschi supposedly used a similar concept to demonstrate how he would get the duomo in Florence to stand.

Freeze at 1:28 and it starts to make sense. I have no idea whether this is a unique set of results from a only one 3x3, or how he discovered these higher-order patterns. Or what drove him to even look. Maybe it's all long known by some specialized mathematicians: he suggests that it is known, but not widely.

I love it. While watching the video I was constantly thinking 'Oh, I would totally do this in GrassHopper', and then it turned out she actually also used GrassHopper! :)

thank you

Great fun, thanks. I've been mapping Langford pairing solutions onto the vertices of regular polygons printed off the internet and ruling straight lines between them just to see what happens. So when n=7, the polygon has 14 vertices and straight lines between the two 7s, the two 6s, and so on down to the two 1s. I noticed in the several examples of Langford solutions I looked at so far that whenever these lines intersect to form an isosceles triangle the apex measures 51 degrees as accurately as I can, which is very close to 360/7. I don't know what to make of that, especially as this apex angle to n relationship doesn't seem to apply to other values of n for which there are Langford solutions, such as 8.

perfecttt

This guy is a fkin genius

This gentleman is still the most impressive of all mentalists. Many years ago I wrote to him and I was told he would never reply to an amateur. I received a very encouraging handwritten letter from Mr Maven. R.I.P. Sir.

On a sphere please 🤞🕊️📽️ Torus... Conics...

Le varie animazioni con quale programma le ottieni.

Dave Smith is so humble. He is the hero.

Looking like Karl Marx

*Consider another experiment:* A coin is flipped and if it is Heads you are directed draw a marble from bag A that contains 5 White marbles and 5 Black marbles. If it is Tails you are to draw a marble from bag B that contains 9 Black marbles and 1 White marble. The experiment is run: The coin is flipped and the result of the coin flip is concealed from you. You are presented with a bag and directed to draw a marble from it. You know that the bag presented to you is either Bag A or Bag B but since the result of the coin flip was concealed from you, you are unsure which bag you are drawing from. After running the experiment you ended up with a Black marble. What is the probability that Heads was the result of the initial coin flip? *Discuss.*