Christian Math Fail

[AntiCitizenX]

This makes a nice rebuttal against mathematical Platonism, too.  Many Christians actually think that numbers literally "exist" in some magical realm beyond space and time.

[jiberish]

I had 2 sandwiches 15 minutes ago. Now I have 0 sandwiches.
2 sandwiches + 15 minutes = 0 sandwiches. 2+15=0 ???
Explain that, MISTER ATHEIST!

[KingCrocoduck]

Brackets and sets, that's all you need.

[AlbertaGeek]

Silent film does have a certain charm over those new-fangled "talkies".

[yourfriendlyneighborhoodat]

"I don't understand math, but I can do math anyway. Therefore Gawd." 
Nicely done, Marty. 

[TheNosoulevr]

LoL "By fucking definition!" :)

[armouredskeptic]

No, if god didn't exist, 1+1 could equal anything, even 1+1=78.
OMG
THE BIBLE SAYZ SO!

[SmashtheCmachine]

Hell, if we defined "one" to refer to 2 objects, then 1+1 would = 4. It's our language and our reasoning that makes mathematics consistent.

Or, lets put this another way - It's our observations and logic that form consistent patterns, and consistent patterns have yet to be demonstrated beyond the scope of the language we use to represent it.

Math, itself, has changed and become more refined throughout our history - in fact, I believe roman numerals were used in the day of biblical authors, and our current model is far more effective.

[Etherwinter]

I felt like I was back in high school watching this. High school math AND having a teacher who only wrote stuff on the board and didn't talk. But at least this video has music! Good stuff.

[Ecidemon]

I saw you outside today, thought you looked familiar :D
Love the videos, keep up the good work!

[DrShaym]

Theists like to say God can do anything except that which is logically impossible because it helps explain away the omnipotence paradox (_could God make a rock so big that even he couldn't lift it?_). My question is, _why can't God do that which is logically impossible?_ If he created the universe and the laws that govern it, why shouldn't he be able to change the rules of logic?

[PhillyphilKO]

I should have been more attentive during my math classes; practically everything described in this video just flew right over my head. :P I still really enjoy your content though. :)

[Zeredek]

See this is why I love your channel so much.

[RajarshiBandopadhyay]

This was your most beautiful video so far.

[TurnaboutAkamia]

The more maths you put in your videos, the more I feel like I have to dig up my dusty old maths textbook (which covers just about everything from counting to calculus) just so I can grasp these concepts without help.

... As much as I hate headaches, that doesn't sound like a bad idea. I'd get a headache trying to make sense of these symbols I don't yet understand anyway, I suppose, so there's no way to properly "win" that battle.

Except maybe not play the game at all, but where's the fun in that?

[sabertooth]

Oh Marty, I think you should have put on a bowler cap, black suit and had a little cane for this demonstration... And if it were an animated cartoon... Ren and Stimpy style animation!
That's how I am imagining you in all this.

[WanquanInfoPlus]

It must have been hard to frame that board considering the aspect ratio.

[afm]

What I find ironic is that the website Martymer 81 cites goes on to talk about the Fibonacci sequence, which appears in plants as a result of the optimization process called, you guessed it, evolution. That probably was not exactly their intention.

[Raytrek]

You have some good stuff here my friend, keep up the good work.

[SemiDelirious]

Actually I am more familiar with Peano's formulation of natural numbers, where N is a set which fulfills the Peano axioms:
1) 0 is a natural number.
2) There is an injective map f from N to N (which defines the successor for each number)
3) f(n) =/= 0 for every n in N.
4) For every subset A of N from (0 in A) and (n in A implies f(n) in A) follows A = N.

With this setup, one just defines 1 = f(0) and an addition f(n+m) = n + f(m) with 0 as neutral element. Hence 1 + 1 = 1 + f(0) = f(1+0) = f(1) = 2 (by the very definition as well).

And yes I am aware that you are aware of alternative definitions and that the Peano formulation may be way more abstract. Though it is a little bit more elegant when it comes to constructing the integers, rationals and so on.