You're saying I'm cheating because I used a smart definition. I don't think that's cheating. I think that's smart.
Good morning.
The theory doesn't come from the sky.
I don't think anyone has really great mental Coq.
31 is too big, let's do 103.
If Gauss did it, why can't you?
It's an Ancient Chinese song that tells you another way to solve this particular problem.
I can read this, but I don't know what it says.
[Speaks Chinese] this is a very archaic way of saying 21.
Multiply by half of a moon.
If one is less than zero, then zero is less than one. That makes no sense. Good enough for us.
This is the part where if you weren't in this class you would say `d is obviously 1'. Since you are in this class this is the part where you say `ARGH! D IS OBVIOUSLY 1!'
Once you understand how to math...
A mathematician cares primarily about the abstract nonsense.
There's a big difference between the worst correct proof and the best incorrect proof. One is correct, the other is not.
I'm smarter than Coq and I can figure it out.
You can use pretty much anything you want besides cheating.
If you're in the other 145 class you probably spent a month on truth tables.
There was a time when this was the cutting edge of algebra research, back in 1594.
If you were to try that in a numerical problem, you would burn 5 hours of your life and find out that doesn't work. That's a valuable experience.
What's that? Paper? 20th century stuff.
Ugh! Counting. How do you do that?
We're slowing down. It's getting easier. This class is getting soft.
At all other schools you would learn tricks for counting stuff. At Waterloo you learn the systematic theory for counting stuff.
If you want to make it non-nonsense, which I guess just means sense.
Your attitude towards getting your grades should be the same as my attitude towards getting them to you, in that I don't really care.
Everyone here's Greek pronunciation sucks.
Now it can't possibly be a coincidence, because we did three examples! If it works for three examples it can't possibly be a coincidence.
Anytime you ask someone to pick a number they'll pick 7. You know that, right?
If you show up for the midterm and turn in a blank exam you will get 61 for the midterm.
Can we do something without ugly cosines and sines?
I sound like a bad fifth grade student in fractions. 7 divided by 5 is 1.
You'll get a rational square root thingy but it might not be an integer square root thingy.
Does it work or does it not work? [Pauses] Yeah. That's something to think about.
You know what kind of class this is.
To answer this question, we're going to have to go to 11.
If Gauss did it then you should be able to do it, right?
This proof is too cool to not work.
Now that this proof works in two cases, we can't throw it away.
I guess if you're one of those dirty applied mathematicians like me you have to actually care about applications.
0 is a prime in sufficiently advanced math classes.
This is not a subject where you have to contend with dead mathematicians like Gauss.
This is taking us a little too far afield. [While teaching about fields]
Two is an odd prime.
Imagine you're living in a universe where 41 is the smallest prime.
I suggest reading it in Latin. You get more of a sense of Gauss's sense of humour that way.
You know what moonshine is, right?
You know profQUOTES are fake, right?
