Main post link -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFLkou8NvJo
Have a nice look at the video and comment on what you think of it? A video by Vi Hart (a Mathemusician) Does that number really exist? Or is it hypothetical? What are your views on it? From me, Its just Wow.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
It turns out that wau equals one. That's the reason why many of these sequences work. For example, take the first infinite fraction: ⋯3+⋯13+⋯3+⋯113+⋯3+⋯13+⋯3+⋯1112 For simplicity, let x=⋯3+⋯13+⋯3+⋯113+⋯3+⋯13+⋯3+⋯1111. Then we get x=3x+1x1=4x1⟹x2=41⟹x=21, so F=2x=1 as desired. In addition, a lot of the exponentiation infinite series crumble under the definition that F=1, since 1anything=1.
Furthermore, how legitimate is a number whose name sounds similar to the word "wow"? ;)
Log in to reply
Yeah. The most straightforward clue in the video that wau is 1 is that she says e2iπ=F which obviously is one.
Log in to reply
There were other early clues. the one with 5/6 was easy to evaluate. We get F=5/6+1/6*(F) ->F=1. That was really the moment when I went "wait a minute..."
Log in to reply
F=y+yx+yyx…x+xy+xxy… ?
Yeah. But how to justifyLog in to reply
x and y were side lengths of a rectangle that had its side lengths in the ratio F. In other words, x=y. Then that fraction collapses.
Remember,David A. .... VERY BRILLIANT THINKING....GREAT ........
I have an issue with her initial definition of "wau". It appears that the continued fraction she starts with, is in fact, not convergent. As she pointed out, the partial values of the partial fraction oscillate between 1/2 and 2; so it does not converge to 1.
It would be like saying 1-1+1-1+1... = x, so 1-x = x and x = 1/2; thus making it seem like the series converges to 1/2. But this is not true under the most "normal" idea of convergence.
The number is actually 1
Log in to reply
ya
David A. got the answer
'wau'- wow...
Yup mate! IT"S REALLY WOW!