Here’s a Couple of Easy Ones #shorts

[pratn]

Spoiler: Those big numbers are 2**35 and 2**42 and the product is 2**77.

[Keys_]

Who ever recognises 2 to the power of 35 in its full form, hats off to you

[KeNsHoRt]

What we got taught in school: What is 35 plus 42?

What comes in the exam: What is 34, 359, 738, 368 times 4, 398, 046, 511, 104?

[wg]

I love the part where he tells how it’s done.

[chickens_are_sus]

Plot twist: He makes us think that the 2nd one is insanely hard making us think that both of them are just as easy as each other

[St.JohnWort]

34, 359, 738, 368 = 2^35
4, 398, 046, 511, 104 = 2^42

(2^35) * (2^42) = 2^77

35 + 42 = 77

It is logarithmic math and number theory. The two problems are just as easy as simple addition of two numbers 35 + 42 given you look at the first problem logarithmically.

[unknown]

I see an explanation that the big numbers are 2^35, 2^42 and 2^77. However, how do I figure that out? Do I have to memorize the powers of 2 up to 2^100 or something?

[watrgoat]

34 billion is 2^35 and 4 trillion is 2^42 so to multiply you add their exponents so the answer is 2^77

[Blithe-xu]

Please put a full version of this on spotify I wanna listen to it on repeat and cry

[bacchadumII]

I _think_ the top might be 2^35 & 2^42.
If so then it's easy to write in notation. But idk how to identify the numbers that easily without a calculator

[michael]

Both questions are equally easy if you're a maths professor you just put them both on a slide and ask your next class to answer them

[davidgillies]

Non-mathematicians think mathematics is about computation.

[mwizachirambo]

Now I've gotta see the rest of this and find out the right way to look at the first one

[joshhh]

They are both just as easy... if u are Helen Keller

[Jeffcat]

Remember guys, lifting a ton is just as easy as lifting a water bottle, just depends how you look at it.

[andersej]

So, it's not about looking at it the right way, it's about him writing it the right way.

[klipklapklop]

They are the same degree of difficulity but the scale makes them completely different. Cutting a 1m2 plot of grass is easy. Cutting a 1km2 plot if grass is exactly the same method but 1 million times more tedious

[pitched]

This isn't a guide to solving basic arithmetics with huge numbers. It's supposed to show, that one just needs more work and substeps to be solved, but not a more difficult solving method.

What you can take from this practically is to break down tasks and problems into their relevant components to know if you need more thinking or more working. Some tasks are just tedious and repetitive and others need alot of individual solving methods.

By differentiating, you can focus your brain power on the tasks that need your smarts and shut off your complex thinking for tasks that just need work.

In the example you just have to do a bunch of basic arithmetics over and over again, while the other task only needs one step. But your mind doesn't need more complex solving in either. It also shows, that intelligence is not being able perform the tasks of a calculator quicker, but to be the one putting the simple steps into one complex scheme.

[ZnakeTech]

I'm going to assume his point is it doesn't matter if the numbers are small or large, if you know the basic methods, you can do both problems easily, it's just a matter of how much time it will take.

[pinakinathc]

for those still confused — the guy in video is referring to a concept known as “hardness” of a problem. It’s somewhat related to (albeit an oversimplification) to P = NP or P != NP