Friedman Numbers - Numberphile

Professor Ed Copeland on Friedman Numbers - more below.
More links & stuff in full description below ↓↓↓

Thanks to these supporters: Herschal Sanders --- Alex Bozzi --- OK Merli --- Joshua Wilson/Andrew Touchet --- Lê --- plusunim --- Jordan White --- Micky Baeza --- Tracy Parry

NUMBERPHILE

Videos by Brady Haran

[MrImagin]

"What are you laughing?!?"
"Because it's just cool"

[jon]

Ed is my favorite. His voice is so soothing, and the joy he displays in his videos is infectious. I vote he should record his favorite textbooks in audiobook format.

[kolsk]

"Because it´s just cool" Copeland, Ed;

[TheAngelsHaveThePhoneBox]

I like 2592 = 2^5*9^2, because the order remains and you can write it without using any other symbols than the numbers itself (just by using superscript and implied multiplication).

[TMGellert]

What about non-integer Friedman numbers?
Example: 2.5 = 5 / 2

[mudcrutched]

even though i have never had an aptitude for math(s). and don't really enjoy the process of doing math, I still really appreciate numberphile and look forward to each video . Thanks

[EJNGH]

5:17 the most priceless coolest nerdiest moment I've ever saw :D

[b-coeur]

He writes numbers so neatly and in such straight lines ^u^

[wobblycogsyt]

It makes sense that as the number get larger it's more likely to be a Friedman as there's more options for ways to generate the number. It would also be true though that it would become increasingly hard to prove whether a number was a Friedman number. I wonder if there are any optimizations for finding the particular combination symbols and numbers that gives a Friedman number.

[prydin]

Is it just me, or does this guy seem like someone you would have a lot of fun having a beer with?

[innertubez]

I think they missed the smiley faces for the two repdigit Freedman numbers. If they are all 9s or 1s then are they not nice Freedman numbers by definition?

[theendofit]

is there a last non-Friedman Number. where all numbers after it are Friedman Numbers?

[stellarfirefly]

This video reminds me of the "Four 4's" puzzle, where one must find all numbers from 0 to 100 using only four 4's using basic operators, but the allowed operators also included decimal points, square roots, factorials, and bars (repeating decimals).  IIRC, there were a few that were impossible unless the rules were expanded to include more uncommon operations such as introducing i and nCr.

[andthesunsets]

My mind is blown. thanks for the video!

[CTK]

Woah! I just stumbled upon this video, and the name "Friedman" was familiar to me, and it just so happens that Dr. Friedman was one of my favorite professors at Stetson University! I'm blown away right now. His rubik's cube collection is amazing, and I remember a time that I actually challenged him to a Rubik's Cube solving competition. I may have been able to solve it faster, but I looked up a guide on how to do it (so yeah, I guess that's cheating). He actually invented his own way, and his method was a lot more impressive than mine, so I conceded to that. Thank you for this video! :)

[Loonce]

He writes very well. Very clean and perfecf, lol

[wyattstevens]

Here's one that (almost) works! 2.5 = 5/2 (I say "almost" because I'm pretty sure this idea won't quite work)

[KingCulta]

And there was me thinking these were somehow going to be extremely important in economics.

[bernardfinucane]

"Many of us quite enjoy 125, it's a nice number" That says it all I guess.

[hassanhan]

Show me you handwriting; and I will tell who you are. Just looking at Dr. Copland hand writing and dexterity of his hands you know he is genius guy. Such a pleasure to listen to him