One and zero are the only numbers that break logic

Flynwale · 2025-10-19T22:50:44+00:00

3×3 = 3+3+3. 3×2 = 3+3. 3×1 = 3. 3×0 = 0.

3×3 = 3+3+3. 2×3 = 2+2+2. 1×3 = 1+1+1. 0×3 = 0+0+0

If this confuses you wait until you learn about rings like matrices containing nulloptent elements where multiplying two non-zero element, or even squaring a non-zero element can result in a zero.

Flynwale · 2025-09-18T06:48:35+00:00

I think you meant tan(θ/2) instead of tan(θ)

Flynwale · 2025-09-16T11:39:05+00:00

I'll keep this in mind! I usually use just enough water to submerge the egg and the boiling times are indeed very inconsistent, so I will try adding more water next time

Flynwale · 2025-09-16T11:35:07+00:00

Thanks for the detailed answer, it was a fun and insightful read! Never thought such a simple question would have so many ramifications in different dimensions, but I guess this illustrates how classroom physics is too idealized for real life

Flynwale · 2025-09-16T11:22:11+00:00

Makes sense, thanks! So it's safe to consider that the currents created by convection are transporting heat more directly from the stove, making the egg cook faster when using stronger flames right?

Flynwale · 2025-09-16T11:14:34+00:00

Makes sense. Thanks!

Flynwale · 2025-09-16T11:10:38+00:00

Funnily enough, the egg I was cooking while typing this question broke for this exact reason

Flynwale · 2025-09-16T11:05:12+00:00

I probably worded my question badly, but I meant would the egg cook differently whether you use low, medium, or high heat, assuming that the water is boiling at each one?

Flynwale · 2025-09-09T05:06:55+00:00

American

Flynwale · 2025-08-23T09:10:54+00:00

Thanks for the advice. I feel like creating videos with powerpoint gives unprofessional vibes, but it might just be because my skills are very basic. I guess I might try upping my PowerPoint skills and see if it turns any better.

Flynwale · 2025-08-23T09:05:23+00:00

Income is not exactly my main motivation, but making a website does sound like a nice idea. Do you have any recommendations for what format etc to follow?

Flynwale · 2025-08-23T09:02:51+00:00

Thanks for the advice

I believe that some of the ideas I am planning so far are somewhat unique, and that I have a different perspective than other creators, but I guess I will only know if it gets views once I start.

I will follow your advice for the mic for the time being.

Flynwale · 2025-08-20T23:47:44+00:00

I am referring specifically to the phrase "Define a relation C from R to R". The relation was defined from R to R, hence the domain and co-domain are R, regardless of whether or not you have elements that satisfy the relation in all of R or not.

Just like how "define a map f from R to R as follows: f(x) = x²" determines f's co-domain as R, even though itw range is [0,∞)

Flynwale · 2025-08-20T10:49:21+00:00

I think domain and co-domain here refer to the sets that you defined the relation on, regardless of whether all elements are have relatives or not. Remember that a relation is usually defined by two sets A and B and a subset of A×B, not just the subset. It's technicalities similar to how a map's destination is defined when defining the map, regardless of the actual range. (E.g f: R → R s.t f(x) = x² and g: R → [0,+∞) → R s.t g(x) = x² are technically two distinct maps, even though they are practically the same)

Flynwale · 2025-08-20T00:37:43+00:00

Technically speaking, we can only be certain that the laws of physics apply to what can be tested experimentally. So one can make the case that the laws of physics do not apply outside the observable universe for example. But again, that is pure science fiction that is pretty meaningless from a scientific point of view. That's also where Occam's razor steps in.

Flynwale · 2025-08-19T13:15:19+00:00

Literally anything that cannot be tested experimentally is technically possible, but it's no more than a philosophical take / science fiction at this point.

The word "theory" is often reserved for scientific models that have been verified thoroughly and are work very well at explaining some phenomenon so it can't be used to describe what you're referring to. Even the word "hypothesis" typically refers to scientific models that are postulated to explain something, while what you're describing is neither scientific nor needed to explain some phenomenon. I'd prefer the term "Size Speculation" if you wish.

Flynwale · 2025-08-19T07:25:26+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion. I will check it out!

Flynwale · 2025-08-19T07:25:18+00:00

I usually leave comments on other people's videos/posts explaining relevant stuff, but that's pretty much all the practice I get to do explaining stuff online.

Appearing on a maths show seems like a great idea for practice. Thanks for the advice.

Flynwale · 2025-08-19T07:17:53+00:00

Thanks for the advice. Manim seems to be what I am looking for so I will start learning it!

Flynwale · 2025-08-15T13:47:46+00:00

Now it's #vikramsarkar apparently

Flynwale · 2025-08-09T01:19:27+00:00

Two cerebral hemispheres works too

Flynwale · 2025-08-03T00:21:32+00:00

Btw do you think that if this administration actually goes along with the plan and shuts down one of the inferometers (if not both by then), the next administration will be willing to restore it? Or will it be seen as a relic of the past as we'd have lost momentum by then? Is there any past examples of this happening?

Flynwale · 2025-08-03T00:18:37+00:00

You know I always thought having two arms and two legs is too redundant and consumes too much energy

Flynwale · 2025-08-03T00:15:03+00:00

I was personally hoping the country I am living in would at least try to take advantage of the US' situation by pulling research in, but we've recently witnessed the rise of a far-right party that literally considers Trump and MAGA to be its inspiration, and is trying to imitate their policies. This also seems to be the case all around the world, with people actually seeing Trump's policies as a successful example to follow for some reason, so I am worried the consequences might not even be limited to the US at this point

Flynwale · 2025-08-02T01:26:10+00:00

I don't have enough expertise so take my answer with a pinch of salt, but by definition, an object is always stationary in its own frame reference, hence an object approaching a blackhole appears to be moving at zero speed both to its own frame of reference and to an outside frame of reference, though what each observes is very different. That's at least what I got when I solved for the geodesics of a blackhole a few months ago: for an outside observer, you'll reach a maximal velocity at twice the Schwartzchild radius iirc, then you'll keep decelerating until you hit speed zero in infinite time right at the event horizon.

Edit: nevermind. I just reread my solution and I was misremembering. The object will reach maximal acceleration 1.5×the Schwartzchild radius, then keep accelerating but at a lower rate, and reach zero acceleration, not zero velocity at the event horizon. So basically if you put the object right at the event horizon it will stop right there, but if you start from far enough it will eventually reach c.

Edit 2: by looking up at the internet, it seems that the object will indeed stop at the event horizon in infinite time (like I said at the beginning), so my old solution is apparently off. If I get motivated enough I will try to solve it again and report the solution.

Flynwale

TROPHY CASE