What concepts or facts do you know from math that is mind blowing, awesome, or simply fascinating?

Here are some I would like to share:

  • Gödel’s incompleteness theorems: There are some problems in math so difficult that it can never be solved no matter how much time you put into it.
  • Halting problem: It is impossible to write a program that can figure out whether or not any input program loops forever or finishes running. (Undecidablity)

The Busy Beaver function

Now this is the mind blowing one. What is the largest non-infinite number you know? Graham’s Number? TREE(3)? TREE(TREE(3))? This one will beat it easily.

  • The Busy Beaver function produces the fastest growing number that is theoretically possible. These numbers are so large we don’t even know if you can compute the function to get the value even with an infinitely powerful PC.
  • In fact, just the mere act of being able to compute the value would mean solving the hardest problems in mathematics.
  • Σ(1) = 1
  • Σ(4) = 13
  • Σ(6) > 101010101010101010101010101010 (10s are stacked on each other)
  • Σ(17) > Graham’s Number
  • Σ(27) If you can compute this function the Goldbach conjecture is false.
  • Σ(744) If you can compute this function the Riemann hypothesis is false.

Sources:

  • @Elderos
    10•1 year ago

    I think the problem is worded specifically to hide the fact that you’re creating two set of doors by picking a door, and that shrinking a set actually make each individual door in that set more likely to have the prize.

    Think of it this way : You have 4 doors, 2 blue doors and 2 red doors. I tell you that there is 50% chance of the prize to be in either a blue or a red door. Now I get to remove a red door that is confirmed to not have the prize. If you had to chose, would you pick a blue door or a red door? Seems obvious now that the remaining red door is somehow a safer pick. This is kind of what is happening in the initial problem, but since the second ensemble is bigger to begin with (the two doors you did not pick), it sort of trick you into ignoring the fact that the ensemble shrank and that it made the remaining door more “valuable”, since the two ensembles are now of equal size, but only one ensemble shrank, and it was always at 2/3 odds of containing the prize.