I'd like to tell you about a game/puzzle to help celebrate today.
We'll call it "Death's Dice".
(1/9)
Death finds you. You plead with him that it's too soon, and he agrees to a concession. Every year, he'll roll a set of dice, and if it turns up snake eyes (both 1's) he'll take your life, otherwise, you get one more year.
But it's not necessarily a normal pair of dice.
(2/9)
On the first year, both "dice" will only have two sides, numbered 1 and 2. So in that first year, there's a 25% chance of rolling snake eyes and ending things there.
(3/9)
On the second year, he comes with tetrahedral dice, i.e. both are four-sided, numbered 1 through 4, and again only takes your life if he rolls two 1's.
(4/9)
The next year, the dice are six-sided, after that, eight-sided, etc., etc.
Each year you have a lower and lower chance of dying, but he'll come back every year with a new set of dice, never stopping.
(5/9)
You might think the question now is something like "what's your expected number of remaining years of life?"
But actually, Death gave you a pretty good deal.
(6/9)
The better question to ask here is "what's the probability that you end up immortal?" That is, the probability that Death rolls infinitely many times, with his ever-growing dice, and never once turns up snake eyes.
(7/9)
Stop reading now if you don't want the answer spoiled.
Empirically, if you go run some simulations (which I encourage you to do!), you may notice that no matter how many years you run this, you're probability of survival never seem to drop below around 0.6366...
(8/9)
But what is this value?
As it happens, your chances of immortality are precisely 2/π
This probability is also the square-to-circle area ratio below. Almost certainly coincidence, but extra points to anyone with a logical link between the puzzle and this diagram.
Happy pi day!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There are so many people who have some great idea for a video or blog post or interactive experience that might help others learn a tricky topic, but who aren't sure where to start.
Going by the philosophy that the best way to start is to just start, this is a place to trade tips and ask questions of others in the same boat, and potentially find collaborators for what you're working on.
It's a very good question! What follows are many tweets attempting to answer in a possibly way-too-verbose manner. No pictures (sorry), but I'll trust in the readers' mind's eye.
Commentary from mathematicians is more than welcome at the bottom of the thread, which includes scattered thoughts on whether there's a purely geometric reason to expect any rotation to have complex eigenvalues, i.e. one that doesn't appeal to the fundamental theorem of algebra.
First, just answering the question, let's review the basics: What it means for an operator to have an eigenvector with eigenvalue λ is that the way this operator acts on that vector is to simply scale it by λ.
In light of the very sad news about Ron Graham's passing, I thought I'd share an interesting tidbit about his famous constant which I only learned recently (thread).
This number has captured the imaginations of many people with its unfathomable size, myself included. I distinctly remember when I was a kid first learning about it spending hours trying to wrap my mind around it and using it as inspiration for writing ever-larger numbers.
The existence of huge numbers is not in and of itself interesting, but what captivated me was how abstraction and recursion even let us _describe_ such numbers. Honestly, it was one of the first times I appreciated how powerful good definitions could be.