New Video Coming Soon -- Requesting Feedback
Added 2024-03-04 20:52:19 +0000 UTCHi everyone!
We've got a new video coming out soon, it's on The Oldest Unsolved Problem in Math! If you wanted to take a sneak peek and give feedback, we would really appreciate it. Thank you for all your support.
Casper on behalf of the whole Veritasium team
Comments
"Now, many people may think that if there are no applications to the real world, then there's no point studying it." Sure there is -- keep mathematicians employed and busy 😉
Kimberly Green
2024-03-05 20:07:21 +0000 UTC20:11 - forgotten blooper
SkaveRat
2024-03-05 17:48:03 +0000 UTCAmazing video as usual, always making me want to switch my careers to Number Theory 😅🥹
Jatin Khare
2024-03-05 17:42:41 +0000 UTC1. Nice historical overview of perfect numbers. 2. Amusing comments about why probability reasons suggest there are no odd perfects, yet - ahm - we believe there are infinitely many even perfect numbers in spite of the prob. 3. For people who are familiar with perfect numbers the video might be a bit slow. 4. I don't see a benefit for mixing styles (cards and conventional print); this can also be distracting.
Edith Dubiner
2024-03-05 07:33:04 +0000 UTCTimeline sounds like a great idea
Bartosz Błaszkiewicz
2024-03-05 07:06:55 +0000 UTC4:25 you should align terms after the ... so they e.g. 2^n-1 is under 2^n-1
Bartosz Błaszkiewicz
2024-03-05 06:37:48 +0000 UTCA lot of heavy stuff here, but doing a great job piecing it together in a comprehensible form. That said, feedback: @9:13 Nice animation fade-in, but the head is not facing the direction of the faded-in painting. Can the artist re-visit a few of those frames to turn the shadow's head? Because that fade-in reveal is a cool effect that's not quite complete. @11:42 "Euler proved that every even perfect number must have Euclid's form" Maybe I'm misunderstanding the statement, I don't think that this statement is quite equivalent to the conjecture that "Euclid's algorithm produces every even perfect number". Conjecture #4 declares that Euclid's algorithm produces them, but as phrased does not lay exclusive claim to doing so. What did Euler prove? That every even perfect number has Euclid's form, or did he prove that Euclid's algorithm and _only_ that algorithm could produce even perfect numbers? @13:33 - 14:13 Totally lost me with the cards: - Why does having 2N on the right side mean that N must necessarily be odd? - Why does having 2N on the right side mean that there must necessarily be a multiple of 4 on the left side? - Why can only one of the sigmas give an even number? - Why does that mean that there is exactly one prime to an odd power? - How does this tie in with what Descartes predicted? - How does this relate to whether there are any odd perfect numbers? This section is a bit rough for me. I spent at least 10min rewinding that section, trying to track the train of thought, but couldn't follow. I tried listening to the audio only to avoid any lack of clarity from the cards, but I couldn't follow the voice-only explanation either. @15:08 "So far, Mersenne had done an excellent job. He had included Euler's 8th perfect number..." Phrasing: Did you mean that Mersenne had conjectured the 8th perfect number that Euler then proved? Attributing the 8th perfect number to Euler, and then saying that Mersenne had previously included Euler's perfect number before Euler had existed doesn't sound right. @15:29 "Frank Nelson Cole..." Why does this demonstration matter? It's an impressive animation to go through all those numbers, and I assume that these are important, but why? I assume that this has something to do with proving that 2^67-1 is not a perfect number, but why? Is this supposed to tie in with an earlier segment? The audio transition to this statement led me to think that this was a new train of thought, not a continuation of an existing one. @19:51 "Euclid's algorithm produces every even perfect number" is highlighted green Why the highlight? Was this highlighting supposed to be covered in the "TODO" section @11:39? In the animation that follows (through 11:56), none of the 5 listed items are highlighted. @20:12 Audio repeat @21:46 "and has to be bigger than ten to the 3000..." Animation shows 10^30000 (one extra zero) Animation suggestion for walks through history: Include a timeline on the bottom of the screen with a simple notation for the event, and as the history continues, keep expanding the timeline so that we have a visual understanding of the scale required for discovery. It's hard to imagine the scale of time that passed only from the words. For this video, we get jumps of 1000 years, 200 years, 100 years, etc. A visual timeline could give these time differences more impact.
chromicacid
2024-03-05 03:53:48 +0000 UTCThe fake end was pretty funny
Bob Terrell
2024-03-05 02:47:04 +0000 UTCI liked it. Obviously there are parts that still lack graphics or something, so I cannot judge those. There seems to be a pronunciation mishap around 20:13 with Derek re-starting a sentence.
Lionel Pöffel
2024-03-05 01:05:44 +0000 UTCThe explanations are solid, and the animations you've got so far are great! I would like to see more comments about John Voight spoof but I get the video is already long, so maybe skip adding more on that. The last part, especially with Professor Nielsen's comments, felt a bit slow in comparison to the first part and made me lose focus. Maybe move the "problem motivation" part to somewhere in the middle to keep things lively. Just my two cents since you asked for feedback! Thanks for letting us check out your video in this phase!
Mladen Trišić
2024-03-04 23:54:47 +0000 UTC
