Math Has a Fatal Flaw

Not everything that is true can be proven. This discovery transformed infinity, changed the course of a world war and led to the modern computer. This video is sponsored by Brilliant. The first 200 people to sign up via brilliant.org/veritasium get 20% off a yearly subscription.

Special thanks to Prof. Asaf Karagila for consultation on set theory and specific rewrites, to Prof. Alex Kontorovich for reviews of earlier drafts, Prof. Toby ‘Qubit’ Cubitt for the help with the spectral gap, to Henry Reich for the helpful feedback and comments on the video.

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
References:

Dunham, W. (2013, July). A Note on the Origin of the Twin Prime Conjecture. In Notices of the International Congress of Chinese Mathematicians (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 63-65). International Press of Boston. - ve42.co/Dunham2013

Conway, J. (1970). The game of life. Scientific American, 223(4), 4. - ve42.co/Conway1970

Churchill, A., Biderman, S., Herrick, A. (2019). Magic: The Gathering is Turing Complete. ArXiv. - ve42.co/Churchill2019

Gaifman, H. (2006). Naming and Diagonalization, from Cantor to Godel to Kleene. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 14(5), 709-728. - ve42.co/Gaifman2006

Lénárt, I. (2010). Gauss, Bolyai, Lobachevsky-in General Education?(Hyperbolic Geometry as Part of the Mathematics Curriculum). In Proceedings of Bridges 2010: Mathematics, Music, Art, Architecture, Culture (pp. 223-230). Tessellations Publishing. - ve42.co/Lnrt2010

Attribution of Poincare’s quote, The Mathematical Intelligencer, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 1991. - ve42.co/Poincare

Irvine, A. D., & Deutsch, H. (1995). Russell’s paradox. - ve42.co/Irvine1995

Gödel, K. (1992). On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems. Courier Corporation. - ve42.co/Godel1931

Russell, B., & Whitehead, A. (1973). Principia Mathematica [PM], vol I, 1910, vol. II, 1912, vol III, 1913, vol. I, 1925, vol II & III, 1927, Paperback Edition to* 56. Cambridge UP. - ve42.co/Russel1910

Gödel, K. (1986). Kurt Gödel: Collected Works: Volume I: Publications 1929-1936 (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press, USA. - ve42.co/Godel1986

Cubitt, T. S., Perez-Garcia, D., & Wolf, M. M. (2015). Undecidability of the spectral gap. Nature, 528(7581), 207-211. - ve42.co/Cubitt2015

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Special thanks to Patreon supporters: Paul Peijzel, Crated Comments, Anna, Mac Malkawi, Michael Schneider, Oleksii Leonov, Jim Osmun, Tyson McDowell, Ludovic Robillard, Jim buckmaster, fanime96, Juan Benet, Ruslan Khroma, Robert Blum, Richard Sundvall, Lee Redden, Vincent, Marinus Kuivenhoven, Alfred Wallace, Arjun Chakroborty, Joar Wandborg, Clayton Greenwell, Pindex, Michael Krugman, Cy 'kkm' K'Nelson, Sam Lutfi, Ron Neal

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Written by Derek Muller, Adam Becker and Jonny Hyman
Animation by Fabio Albertelli, Jakub Misiek, Iván Tello and Jonny Hyman
Math City Animation by Another Angle 3D Visuals (www.anotherangle.ee)
Filmed by Derek Muller and Raquel Nuno
Edited by Derek Muller
Music and SFX by Jonny Hyman Additional Music from Epidemic Sound
Additional video supplied by Getty Images
Thumbnail by Geoff Barrett
Associate Producers: Petr Lebedev and Emily Zhang

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

Komentarjev

  1. Matthew Rodgers

    Matthew RodgersPred 28 minutami

    The bustling george empirically move because hurricane indirectly happen onto a awesome gym. wandering, youthful tooth

  2. MsUncleKevin

    MsUncleKevinPred 59 minutami

    Thing you cant solve is womens mind. Doesnt matter if u are godel or poincaire. Logic fails.

  3. NYTLYF

    NYTLYFPred uro

    This channel is sponsored by illuminati.

  4. Daniel Dwiky

    Daniel DwikyPred uro

    Finished watching this and i just realized that mathematics and physics really are complicated

  5. Ern de Che

    Ern de ChePred 4 urami

    By design, science only disproves, consequently autoreference is only scientifically useful when it disproves. Illusory truth is a contradiction in terms. Finite minds cannot process infinity in any true form, insanity is the demonstrated result of relentless attempts in spite. Formalist is a euphemism. 0 doesn't exist. An infinite set is a contradiction in terms. g is irrelevant. No one can stand on the shoulders of giants if midgets are permitted to anklebite them down, let alone encouraged. Believing a lie defiles your mind, and the more obvious the lie the greater the defilement.

  6. Barely Rice

    Barely RicePred 6 urami

    yo does anyone remember that tile game from a dong like 10 years ago

  7. Snigdha Sarkar

    Snigdha SarkarPred 7 urami

    Can we just appreciate the animation quality and hard work he put?!!

  8. Krispyking24

    Krispyking24Pred 7 urami

    i want to watch the conways game of life in conways game of life

  9. Michael Shaw

    Michael ShawPred 7 urami

    Moobs

  10. robert otto

    robert ottoPred 7 urami

    Brain just melted 😂 smart guy!👍

  11. Kazimierz Król

    Kazimierz KrólPred 7 urami

    About Cantor's Diagonalization Proof (I am not a mathematician, I have read some Wikipedia articles, but couldn't understand them fully, so what I say here might be bollocks): If we create another real number by adding one to next digit in all the real numbers, then I see two problems: 1. Here is the contradiction without using natural numbers at all: earlier we assumed the list was complete, and contained every real number between 0 and 1, so if we can create another one, the assumption was wrong. 2. We can do the same operation on the natural numbers on the left: add one to next digit in all following numbers (padding all with zeros on the left), and look at this: we have got another natural number, different from all previous ones. This will be our newly created index for the created real number. Isn't this a proof the number set sizes are equal? Of course this suffers from the same contradiction as in #1, but I wonder, did no one think about this simple thing before?

  12. Tom Svoboda

    Tom SvobodaPred 5 urami

    @Kazimierz Król well, the fact that naturals have finitely many digits and decimals have infinitely many digits implies that one set is larger than another, but not trivially. it needs to be proved, which is exactly what the diagonal argument does. for example the set of all rational numbers has the same size as the set of natural numbers, and yet most rational numbers have infinitely many digits when represented by decimals.

  13. Kazimierz Król

    Kazimierz KrólPred 5 urami

    Thanks. So can't the conception that there is more real numbers between 0 and 1 than natural numbers be derived just from the fact that the number of digits must be finite for naturals, while can be infinite for reals? The diagonal proof does not seem necessary at all.

  14. Tom Svoboda

    Tom SvobodaPred 5 urami

    1. it's a proof by contradiction. assume the reals can be listed => derive contradiction => the assumption that the reals can be listed was wrong (which we wanted to prove in the first place) 2. the diagonal argument fails for the natural numbers because it produces an infinite string of digits which is not a natural number. natural numbers have only finitely many digits.

  15. Suzanne Freedman

    Suzanne FreedmanPred 8 urami

    I bet Hilbert was looking over at Gödel thinking like... “You really going to build your entire career around saying I’m wrong? That’s rude, what’d I ever do to you?”

  16. Suzanne Freedman

    Suzanne FreedmanPred 8 urami

    And now I’m wondering if Hilbert DID do something to Gödel to spark that amount of determination 😂

  17. Peter Steele

    Peter SteelePred 9 urami

    The thing about mathematics is that numbers and the values they represent always get bigger & bigger much like ego... until they don't... almost as if self aware, they change their values.

  18. Jeremias

    JeremiasPred 10 urami

    i feel like the barber reference isnt that accurate, if he cant shave him self and the barber cant shave him. he would be exiled or go to jail? not welcome in that"set". No?

  19. Jack Daniels

    Jack DanielsPred 10 urami

    The blue-eyed sword cytomorphologically wave because edger chronologically tour after a abounding nation. bawdy, towering session

  20. Joaquín Hinojosa

    Joaquín HinojosaPred 13 urami

    My brain hurts

  21. XeL NaGa

    XeL NaGaPred 13 urami

    well if you knew what they feed the cattle youd think youd get poissoned too lel worst monocrop used for cattle full of pesticide and gmo. basicly giving the cheapest worst most toxic chemical food possible for cattle. the steak gotta be cheap :D

  22. Politics

    PoliticsPred 14 urami

    Glad there is a mathematical answer to why I can't figure out the truth about Covid!

  23. Adam McKinzie

    Adam McKinziePred 14 urami

    If the game of life can run the game of life, then it’s possible that the game of life could run the game of life running the game of life and continue to do so on an infinite scale

  24. Sven Croon

    Sven CroonPred 14 urami

    only a mathematical system that has no axioms, can ever be truly complete, consistent and decidable. Axioms are the evil that corrupts everything ;-)

  25. Thomas Klugh

    Thomas KlughPred 14 urami

    Now my head hurts.

  26. Marshall115

    Marshall115Pred 15 urami

    give it a few decades-current math is wrong-it will change but still just be humans way of measurement.

  27. neil unger

    neil ungerPred 16 urami

    And here I read this as Meth Has A Fatal Flaw.

  28. EliteTrollingG

    EliteTrollingGPred 16 urami

    5:16. I just wanna ask, why don't mathematicians just agree on what number natural numbers and real numbers should stop at. Like the end of the number line is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 starting today. And the end of real numbers is 0.999999999999999 until it goes to 1. I mean that would ruin all the work we have put into trying to find the end of pi, but my question is, WOULD it help solve problems mathematicians have been trying to solve for centuries, or would it just create more problems? I'm actually curious.

  29. Piotrek

    PiotrekPred 17 urami

    Hi, i ve got some idea, about part about cantor set theory. If u try to groupe natural numbers and numbers between 0 and 1 like this: for 1, theres 0.1. For 27, theres 0.27. For 29010123, theres 0.29010123. Then every Natural number, will be grouped with exactly one number between 0 and 1, and also if u try doing something like in the video, u just take another natural number matching this one. Does it work? Please lemme know.

  30. Piotrek

    PiotrekPred 17 urami

    @Brauggi the bold oh, u re right, thank u. I didnt considered irrational numbers. But still, i dont believe this😒, even if the proof showed by cantor is 100% true and logic, my mind cannot take this. :c.

  31. Brauggi the bold

    Brauggi the boldPred 17 urami

    It does not work. You will only ever hit rational numbers which have a decimal representation that ends in repeating zeros that way. Your mapping will for instance not include ANY irrational number between 0 and 1.

  32. Sumit Juyal

    Sumit JuyalPred 18 urami

    Wow, self-reference, what a beautiful link, this channel is the perfect blend between epistemological philosophy and mathematics, as someone who is a math graduate I would've loved to be introduced to subject histories like that before mindlessly trying to solve problems and pass the exam. People need to normalize and popularise the idea that mathematics applied philosophy which is just applied inherent logic. Your channel does wonders for us appreciators of the mind but are still rigorous in our understanding of the same.

  33. Dylan Hase

    Dylan HasePred 19 urami

    I want to launch my own branch of math! How do you do that

  34. H

    HPred 20 urami

    Maybe I don't understand it but wouldn't the diagonal number be on the list since the list goes to infinity and because at one point you will have to roll back 9 to an 8 making it equal to that number in the diagonal the minute you add +1.

  35. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah AhmedPred 20 urami

    9:25 need explanation

  36. Azio Prism

    Azio PrismPred 22 urami

    Having 2 apples is impossible. Identical numbers are not possible. What makes numbers and apple differ is the environment around them :9

  37. Croldfish

    CroldfishPred 23 urami

    1:25 i forgor :skull:

  38. Heaven&Hell

    Heaven&HellPred 23 urami

    none of this can be proven to be true.. concurrent quantum states prevent this.

  39. KLEIS

    KLEISPred dnevom

    Math can prove a lot of things but it can't prove life, it is coz of math is itself incomplete by knowledge of human has created, completeness or creation of all things that has life is fundamental things that it is not related by math. So math is not absolute and it is just one of many knowledge to prove something by what creation has created

  40. TheBeast

    TheBeastPred dnevom

    just learned set theory for my computer science degree really interesting stuff

  41. Bijou Smith

    Bijou SmithPred dnevom

    @28:20 so, the undecidability of the spectral gap property amounts to the first proof quantum physics, as we conceive it presently, does not admit reductionism? Have I got that right? That's pretty signifcant for philosophy of science, which has previously generally operated under the paradigm that science (whatever it is) is reducible _in principle_ to base physics, through obviously not always in practice. So either that's a false paradigm or quantum physics is not base.

  42. ayy lmao

    ayy lmaoPred dnevom

    Russell's paradox is a violation of the law of excluded middle. Ergo the law of excluded middle is wrong. Ergo superposition.

  43. Kim Tae Hwan

    Kim Tae HwanPred dnevom

    The voice is good though I'd never understand the contents...

  44. Afqwa

    AfqwaPred dnevom

    This really murders the idea that math is some kind of divine tongue bestowed upon us by the gods. Murders it in its crib by smothering it with a pillow. Why does math work . . . _uhhhh sometimes it has empirically useful results._

  45. Giap Chin

    Giap ChinPred dnevom

    "This is the game of life, running on the game of life." Then proceeds to slow zoom out. Wow my mind literally was blown.

  46. Andrew C. Mumm

    Andrew C. MummPred dnevom

    Enter quantum entanglement... a proof can be true and false at the same time until observed. And when observed, the universe splits into different realities... :D

  47. Ascot

    AscotPred dnevom

    Mind Blown

  48. Andrew C. Mumm

    Andrew C. MummPred dnevom

    The game of life animations at the start are awesome - does anyone know how they were made?

  49. Gerard Ligonde

    Gerard LigondePred dnevom

    The erratic canada methodologically dare because oboe endosonographically sin aboard a tall afghanistan. curious, meek broccoli

  50. enthusiasticGeek

    enthusiasticGeekPred dnevom

    25:57 and it vanishes in a puff of logic

  51. hieu dang

    hieu dangPred dnevom

    somehow i heard "godel" as "good old" for almost the entire video

  52. Babe Root

    Babe RootPred dnevom

    The language of God...the Creator/Designer, and mind of ALL information. The language of God...Mathematics. Amazing...isn't it? ☀️

  53. Andre

    AndrePred dnevom

    _"The language of God...the Creator/Designer,"_ There is no god and no creator.

  54. ayy lmao

    ayy lmaoPred dnevom

    More like word salad

  55. flobbie

    flobbiePred dnevom

    Yeah, but it is neither a flaw, nor is it fatal.

  56. Andre

    AndrePred 18 urami

    @flobbie _"It just is that way. This does not make math any less useful to me."_ If there is even one contradiction it is. But we have never found any. It is just that there is no proof.

  57. flobbie

    flobbiePred 19 urami

    @Andre, i don't see that this makes it flawed. It just is that way. This does not make math any less useful to me.

  58. Andre

    AndrePred 22 urami

    @flobbie _" i don't understand. There are no flaws in math."_ You can't prove that a formal system is free of contradictions inside that system itself (for those systems that fullfill all conditions of Gödels theorems). That is a problem, because if there is a contradiction (even a contradiction we do not know today) then you can prove anything. Math is useless then. You maybe can prove this in some other system, but then how do you know that this system is free of contradictions? _"Your axiomatic system may be flawed, as it is contradictory. "_ And for many, many of those systems you cannot prove that it's not. _". But there is no flaw in the general way of how somone is supposed to process language."_ A "language" that contains a proof for A and not A is not really useful. _"Do some math and you will see there is no flaw."_ You can't prove this by examples. Do you even know what math is?

  59. flobbie

    flobbiePred 22 urami

    @Andre, i don't understand. There are no flaws in math. What is that even supposed to mean. Your axiomatic system may be flawed, as it is contradictory. Or your proof may be flawed as it contains errors. But there is no flaw in the general way of how somone is supposed to process language. Do some math and you will see there is no flaw.

  60. Andre

    AndrePred dnevom

    Not being able to prove consistency is something I would call a "flaw".

  61. Robin Collins

    Robin CollinsPred dnevom

    The actually ice cytologically add because brother noteworthily note an a tacit volleyball. fanatical, subdued pine

  62. darth biernot

    darth biernotPred dnevom

    My brain nearly exploded while watching this! People always say: "Math is logic" I personally am more comfortable with language. I speak German natively, English and French fluently but when it comes to a simple mathematic equation with a variable in it my brain goes: "system just crashed due to missing math.dll" 😆

  63. MrBizaaro

    MrBizaaroPred dnevom

    Excellent Video ! Feels like one of your best

  64. Jeffrey Wiegley

    Jeffrey WiegleyPred dnevom

    Holy crud!!!! I *finally* understand the diagonal proof after 30 years... Prof. Leonard Adelman (The 'A' in RSA) used in Gödel's Incompleteness theorem in Second Order Logic class and I blew that on the final exam. Oh... I can die happy now.

  65. Matthew Means

    Matthew MeansPred dnevom

    Alan Turing a story is my favorite depiction of humanity. A single human was enough to determine the difference between a world with and without Nazi Germany thru his contributions which would have otherwise plummeted us into a darker world with less insigh, yet in response to his glorious contribution to humanity, he was treated as a plague for being gay and made the other on premise of his differences that hurt no one. Humanity will respond to it's very saving with its own doom.

  66. why bread

    why breadPred dnevom

    This video and his “how a infinite hotel ran out of rooms” video match up I just thought about it

  67. Peter Shmain

    Peter ShmainPred dnevom

    Cantor's diagnolization proof is incorrect because when you use that method to think of a new number, it must then also be assigned to a new index which is just 1 more than the previous number therefore disproving infinite inequality. However, that's not to say that his ideas are incorrect. It's just that this proof doesn't completely work in this way

  68. Andre

    AndrePred 4 urami

    @Peter Shmain _"given that the list is static, then you should not be able to create a new number from the decimal side either, "_ No. Cantor has shown that you can do this. That is the whole idea behind it. _"thus defeating the point if being static,"_ No. _"because then logic stands to reason "_ What "logic"? _"So if you can take a decimal and add 1 to each digit, why can't you take the index number and add 1 to it?"_ All indexes are taken. The list is static.

  69. Tom Svoboda

    Tom SvobodaPred 5 urami

    @Peter Shmain the list is not an equation, you're not "doing" anything to it. it's an assignment of a decimal to every natural number (which can be pictured as an infinite list indexed by the natural numbers). for any natural number n there's a given decimal d_n. one such assignment would be d_n = 1/n, which in the "infinite list" representation looks like d_1 = 1/1 = 1.0000... d_2 = 1/2 = 0.5000... d_3 = 1/3 = 0.3333... ... this is just an example. clearly a lot of decimals are missed, for example 2/3 never appears. the diagonal argument proves that we can find a missing number for any such list, therefore it's impossible to come up with a formula for d_n which would account for all decimals.

  70. Peter Shmain

    Peter ShmainPred 5 urami

    @Tom Svoboda given that the list is static, then you should not be able to create a new number from the decimal side either, thus defeating the point if being static, because then logic stands to reason that what you do to one side of an equation, you do to the other side, correct? So if you can take a decimal and add 1 to each digit, why can't you take the index number and add 1 to it? Maybe im missing something here?

  71. Tom Svoboda

    Tom SvobodaPred 5 urami

    there is no new index. the list is not being generated, it's static and completed from the moment you consider it. all the indices (the natural numbers) are already taken.

  72. Andre

    AndrePred dnevom

    _"Cantor's diagnolization proof is incorrect"_ No. _"when you use that method to think of a new number, it must then also be assigned to a new index"_ No. _"t 1 more than the previous number "_ What "previous number"? _"However, that's not to say that his ideas are incorrect."_ The idea and the proof is correct. _" It's just that this proof doesn't completely work in this way"_ It does.

  73. Michael Borisow

    Michael BorisowPred dnevom

    I don't know how many of all 8 million of yall are understanding this, but I'm gonna have to pause and look up stuff from this vid another ∞times before I understand anything

  74. Aymane Sghiar

    Aymane SghiarPred dnevom

    Best video I've watched in a looooooooong time.

  75. Anaya Barata

    Anaya BarataPred dnevom

    So is the fact that not all true things can be proven also unprovable?

  76. Andre

    AndrePred dnevom

    It is the opposite.

  77. Robin Hodson

    Robin HodsonPred dnevom

    But this depends upon the assumption that recursion and logic contradictions disprove systems. That's not necessarily universal, otherwise we wouldn't be capable of comprehending them. Saying "This is incomprehensible," an apparent paradox, is actually comprehensible, and thus not not invalid.

  78. costaran

    costaranPred dnevom

    MEGALIKE 👍

  79. James Corey

    James CoreyPred dnevom

    Thank you for this waste of time.

  80. Michael MAnville

    Michael MAnvillePred dnevom

    More like insufficient computational ability to prove true, but can never be prove false.

  81. Релёкс84

    Релёкс84Pred dnevom

    Absolutely nothing to do with "computational ability"

  82. Boysfifa010

    Boysfifa010Pred dnevom

    What does it say about me that i read the title as "Meth has a fatal flaw" ??

  83. Furqan Siddiqui

    Furqan SiddiquiPred dnevom

    That's the reason I love watching this channel. It forces me to "THINK"

  84. James White

    James WhitePred dnevom

    I don't know if there is truth to be found studying mathematics, but there is much beauty to behold.

  85. Jacob Alexander

    Jacob AlexanderPred dnevom

    Godel hurts my damn head. How would you come up with that.

  86. Prototype 81

    Prototype 81Pred dnevom

    To say things like "always" or "we will never know" is a fallacy. This is similar to clickbait. Nobody can day for certain what can be or cant be possible in the future. That is a simple fundamental of life. So... why is this guy using terms that are incorrect?... What else is he invorrect about. Why trust this guy on anything when hes obviuosly romancing the structure.. Lame.

  87. Mr Blue

    Mr BluePred dnevom

    1 + 2 = 4

  88. János TÓTH

    János TÓTHPred 2 dnevi

    Lobachevsky and Bolyai, Gauss is at most the third.

  89. kamahll goodarz

    kamahll goodarzPred 2 dnevi

    Perhaps maths really is the language of reality in so much as they are both paradoxical

  90. Solar Plexus

    Solar PlexusPred 2 dnevi

    I knew it.. Remember "Computer Code Discovered In Superstring Equations" ?

  91. Galina Zwerlein

    Galina ZwerleinPred 2 dnevi

    We don't know what we don't know.

  92. Reilly 25

    Reilly 25Pred 2 dnevi

    Can you not? Math is hard already stop giving them ideas on making it harder I'm still studying just do it after I graduate ty

  93. infinite define

    infinite definePred 2 dnevi

    I don't have to know any of this. I'm richer than yall could ever be. But I only know arithmetic. Chile imma count my money now. Also I don't actually have physical money anymore

  94. Adam Keeley

    Adam KeeleyPred 2 dnevi

    There is no preferable side of the equal sign.

  95. Gleichtritt

    GleichtrittPred 2 dnevi

    Well now you have it, I am suddenly interested in math....

  96. Fat Al

    Fat AlPred 2 dnevi

    Hrhr he said "googleplex" like in google... SMART!

  97. Pieter

    PieterPred 2 dnevi

    At 17:17, where do the prime numbers come from? 2, 3 and 5. Is it just because those are the first three prime numbers, and the equation holds three elements, or is it something else?

  98. Spider-Jonah- Man

    Spider-Jonah- ManPred 2 dnevi

    It’s boring

  99. Noriaki Kakyoin

    Noriaki KakyoinPred 2 dnevi

    Somehow I understood what was going on and it facinated me even though I could never explain it myself

  100. Jesse Thomas

    Jesse ThomasPred 2 dnevi

    Trying to use math to prove math is like trying to use light to prove light. As you would say, this is a self reference. The light needs the dark to be proven. Math is part ‘logos,’ the logical foundation of all that exists. It’s part of the source of all things.

  101. Sam Re

    Sam RePred 2 dnevi

    Godel, Escher, Bach

  102. Frank Harcourt

    Frank HarcourtPred 2 dnevi

    This guy is a total moron and he has no idea why. Everything he says is crap. The universe does not work the way he says it does.

  103. James Sonke

    James SonkePred 2 dnevi

    The Barber Paradox is not a paradox. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's impossible to do. Just because it's illegal for the Barber to shave someone who shaves themselves doesn't change the fact that he is probably going to shave himself It's just an imperfect law. And just because each set supposedly cannot contain itself doesn't change the fact that R (itself) was made up. It exists as an idea. And ideas are infinite

  104. Zora Marslink

    Zora MarslinkPred 2 dnevi

    Infinites sort of have different sizes though, so it's not exactly obvious.

  105. Grilled Flatbread

    Grilled FlatbreadPred 2 dnevi

    This is really similar to not knowing whether you are dreaming, alive, or a simulacrum

  106. John Woodall

    John WoodallPred 2 dnevi

    Math is God. -True, yet unprovable -Consistent as far as we know -Unable to be fully understood

  107. Hedgehog3342

    Hedgehog3342Pred 2 dnevi

    Math is honestly quite confusing at times. Definitely not my strong area.

  108. Adobe Reviews

    Adobe ReviewsPred 2 dnevi

    The sad salmon ipsilaterally untidy because yugoslavian genotypically switch underneath a untidy edward. boring, versed milkshake

  109. Philip Berthiaume

    Philip BerthiaumePred 2 dnevi

    I'll stick with 2 + 2 for now, thx....

  110. Jesus Shuttlesworth

    Jesus ShuttlesworthPred 2 dnevi

    Godel grief

  111. Teflon  musk

    Teflon musk Pred 2 dnevi

    What a good ole number

  112. KZisNBKosplay

    KZisNBKosplayPred 2 dnevi

    Math is just a Riddle.

  113. Seth Solomon [Student]

    Seth Solomon [Student]Pred 2 dnevi

    My life is a lie

  114. Tea Drinker

    Tea DrinkerPred 2 dnevi

    The set that contains everything can't contain nothing