Excuse me, just the best pop-math channel coming through

oh god forbid making mathematics interesting! wouldnt want anybody getting interested and deciding to learn more about it

>wouldnt want anybody getting interested and deciding to learn more about it

this
there are no jobs anymore because of this shit right there.

>oh god forbid making mathematics interesting
Show me, where did I say it's a bad thing.
The thing is it's not a mathematicians job to make things interesting. It takes a lot of work, more than you might think, and a mathematician can spend that time more productively. This job belongs to someone who popularizes science, a popsci.

his podcast is god tier
at least for me

>advanced content
Are you retarded then? Popsci channels that talk about "more advanced content" aren't explaining it mathematically from first principles using motion graphics. He's not a "WHOA HEY GUYS, DID YOU KNOW" channel.

No need to be a contrarian cunt. The more people that educate like this guy and Eugene Khutoryansky the better.

>He's not a "WHOA HEY GUYS, DID YOU KNOW" channel.
No, it isn't a channel like that. It is a popsci though.
Why is this label an insult to you? I'm trying to show that popularizing science is a legit thing to do and you're being angry because I call him a popsci.
>No need to be a contrarian cunt.
Where the heck am I a contrarian?
>The more people that educate like this guy and Eugene Khutoryansky the better.
I agree. Are you suggesting I don't?

"Pop" anything has connotations of lowest-common-denominator factoids, half-truths, misrepresentations, and sensationalism, and you're well aware of it.

The utilities mug video was hilarious because I'd have figured out that it was K(3,3), shown that it wasn't planar, and then shown that deleting one edge makes it planar in seconds. Obviously once you delete the one edge, you just put it back over the handle. incredibly simple problem.

To join that unnecessary discussion above, I'd say it's pop-sci, as he presupposes essentially nothing and because of his target audience. This is mathematically interested people, but in a way that doesn't exclude anyone. Definitions aren't build on previous definition and so he does goes "this is called someName and is like so and so" all the time.

In any case, I agree that it's the best math channel on youtube. Probably because of the animations that help a lot, and because he tends to pick from topics that are actually university math (you'd not find the questions that he resolved in an amateur puzzle book).

He also wrote his own Python code for the animations and if you follow to his website, it's free to use on GitHub. Even if it might be a bit syntactic, I played around with it, pic related.

I also have a youtube channel and it's bothering that, for the most part, either you do relevant interesting math and get no views, of you go for basic stuff and only then get some interaction.

youtu.be/h-sZ4kgln40

I know I'm low IQ because I have a hard time understanding his videos without pausing.
How alone am I in this?

Depends.
E.g. while his neural network videos are pretty and give a good idea of what concepts may be involved, you can't really watch it and "understand" how machine learning is done from it. So don't feel bad.

Pop-sci on this board is a label for shit most of the time, that's why people here don't want to give that label to actually decent channels here.

Obviously you're not alone. Even the creator of these videos often suggests you to pause for a moment to think through the stuff he just said. Reading math isn't at all like reading some novel where you can just keep on going non-stop, unless you're some super math virtuoso. It can often take me over half an hour to read through some half-page proof to truly understand what is going on, granted I'm not some super genius, which I'm sure most of the people posting here are.

I wouldn't call the Feynman lectures pop-sci but they're obviously presented so as to be more accessible, same with this channel.

i agree with you.

Just because the videoes do not consist of some sperglord with an out of focus cellphone camera zoomed into a whiteboard where he nervously explains his proof of some abstract topological subject while never explaining his verbiage does not mean it is normie.

He does a good job of introducing topics that people who do not do pure math would never think to look up.

>"Pop" anything has connotations of lowest-common-denominator factoids, half-truths, misrepresentations, and sensationalism,
Those aren't the only connotations it has. It's a broader term which doesn't mean just "trash".
>I wouldn't call the Feynman lectures pop-sci
I would. I don't care how Veeky Forums mutilated this term. Feynman was a great popularizer od science.

well if you have already studied the topology behind the problem then yes it is easy

>like reading some novel where you can just keep on going non-stop, unless you're some super math virtuoso
Can you imagine being like that? It doesn't imply math wouldn't be difficult but it'd feel so much more smooth, like you're actually exploring the world of math in continuous time. Able to appreciate the beauty of it in a more relaxed way. I feel kind of depressed when i think about how math could have looked so much more beautiful, had I found out how much I like it as a child.
The same way seeing the beauty of a poem in a language you learned to speak later in life is so much painful, than it is for someone who speaks the language natively.

I only like select professors featured on numberphile. The blond haired guy is annoying and the Kline bottle guy is awful as well. I wish I remembered the copypasta for those two, it was fucking amazing. Aside from that the content is mildly interesting as is true for most pop-sci videos.

Pop-sci content is for entertainment, not education. The most anyone will ever gain from it is some interesting trivia and perhaps a jumping off point for future study, nothing more. For those who have careers outside the sciences pop-sci is pretty harmless though it does need to be somewhat careful to not create stereotypes and misconceptions about science or the scientific process. On the other hand anyone going into a hard science that relies heavily on pop-sci to supplement their education is setting themselves up to fail.

One thing that is quite unfortunate about pop-sci is the fact that since pop-sci videos tend to get a lot more views than technically oriented videos due to wider mass appeal content creators generally will prefer to make them since it makes more money.

nice tits

Agreed.

>Pop-sci content is for entertainment, not education.
Sure, but it can be also a great supplement for education for better understanding of certain topics.
E.g. I remember how back in the HS I didn't understand why polynomials were so great and dandy that so much focus was placed on them that every high school kid had to learn them thoroughly. Even my teacher failed to justify them to us. But then I've read a popsci article which compared them to fighting styles in Bruce Lee and The Matrix movies and they came out to be almost the most important thing in the world. Exactly the same thing can be said about many of the 3b1b videos. How many of you haven't appreciate linear algebra as much as you should until you saw his series on it? I haven't most certainly.
All of you must remember those kids that asked "ok teacher, but why would we need that in our life" and teachers that failed to answer those questions. That's exactly the kind of job that good popsci is for.

But I agree you can't depend just on it. You need a consistent source for effective learning and relying on random materials is just too patchy. How you cognitive dissonance works (the thing which makes you pursue knowledge) is by creating holes in your current understanding of things in the form of questions. So if the knowledge is passed on to you just from a single source, even if it's the most consistent thing in the world it won't be enough. You need different sources of inspiration to supplement those missing parts. But if you relied just on this method to grok everything it would take you 20 years to graduate college. That's what postdoc is for.

>One thing that is quite unfortunate about pop-sci is the fact that since pop-sci videos tend to get a lot more views than technically oriented videos due to wider mass appeal content creators generally will prefer to make them since it makes more money.
As much as I hate "technically oriented videos" (*) I agree it's a problem. It's natural of course, because those easier videos target broader audiences, but that doesn't mean there should be less focus on more demanding material. One solution might be government support of some kind. The best monthly popsci journal in my country published by one of our top unis costs only 1 euro, because it's founded by the university (and government) and it's purpose is to be accessible. I don't think 1 euro is even enough to cover print and distribution.
(*) I know they are created because youtube pays for video content and no one pays for text blobs, but I'd rather read than watch; videos are too slow to the point they're useless when you want to look something up or to make a quick review

>not liking the best numberphile professors
You disgust me, but merry christmas

Its not a bad thing bro
But it is pop-math

He's so hot, too. And he plays the mandolin.

>He's so hot, too
pics?
owo

youtube.com/watch?v=hKD-lBrZ_Gg

>while his neural network videos are pretty and give a good idea of what concepts may be involved, you can't really watch it and "understand" how machine learning is done from it.
Exactly what I thought user.

>bittorrent considered harmful traffic because it's demanding on ISPs because they had to deliver continuous wide data stream capabilities
offtopic but lmao torrents were what brought 20 Mbit connection to my house in the middle of nowhere. If not for them I'd still be on a fucking dial-up.

The japanese guy with his toys is amazing

That is the goal of all textbooks

I love how completely oblivious this board is.

>He's not a "WHOA HEY GUYS, DID YOU KNOW" channel.
But he's still a pop-math channel. A just-math channel would be something like the Khan Academy (for basic stuff) or the (maths section of) Institute for Advance Study's channel (for advanced stuff).

>No need to be a contrarian cunt
And you're the one with the contrary opinion here!

...

Where does Numberphile go?

I would probably say Pop-Memery.

This channel is insane. I'm now learning linear algebra in retrospect. Matrix multiplication blew my mind. How did I survive in 5 years of physics without thinking about it thís way. I was always in the top 20 percentile irregardless.. I feel tricked by the ease with which it is now educated.

>That is the goal of all textbooks
It isn't. The purpose of a textbook is to teach you a subject as effectively as possible, it appeals only to people who want to learn it. It sometimes requires to reach out to methods from popsci, but textbooks are full of boring stuff like some less interesting formal details, things you can't be picky about which you just have to learn to go on (which you'd skip otherwise) or all of the hard work you have to put into it by solving problems. Notice that in popsci you have almost no problems to solve on your own. A textbook requires you to spend hundreds of hours on problems which no matter how fascinating the subject is, will become boring at some point. Popsci can't afford to be boring most of the time, while textbooks have to be most of it.

I really disliked the way he visualized functions in his videos about complex analysis or linear algebra (can't remember exactly).
There was an otherwise good video about the inscribed rectangle problem, but the essential part of the proof was handwaved by a statement along the lines of "If you ever meet a topologist, just remind them that you can't inscribe X in Y." Didn't even cite literature or whatever for further reading, just handwaved the entire proof away. Dropped the channel after that disappointment.

I want Tokieda-sama to topologically deform my anus into the shape of his kendama cock.

those titles and thumbnails are inching closer to clickbait category