# Pi hiding in prime regularities

Embed

- Published on May 19, 2017
- A story of pi, primes, complex numbers, and how number theory braids them together.

Brought to you by you: 3b1b.co/leibniz-thanks

Home page: www.3blue1brown.com/

And by Remix: www.remix.com/

The fact that only primes that are one above a multiple of four can be expressed as the sum of two squares is known as "Fermat's theorem on sums of two squares": goo.gl/EdhaN2

Music by Vince Rubinetti:

vincerubinetti.bandcamp.com/album/the-music-of-3blue1brown

------------------

3blue1brown is a channel about animating math, in all senses of the word animate. And you know the drill with USclip, if you want to stay posted about new videos, subscribe, and click the bell to receive notifications (if you're into that).

If you are new to this channel and want to see more, a good place to start is this playlist: 3b1b.co/recommended

Various social media stuffs:

Website: www.3blue1brown.com

Twitter: 3Blue1Brown

Patreon: patreon.com/3blue1brown

Facebook: 3blue1brown

Reddit: www.reddit.com/r/3Blue1Brown

jiwon kang7 hours agoMathematics video is beautiful when it explain algebra in geometric way. I'm so glad to watch your video!

MFM GamingDay agoCould this be used to find new primes?

Leo179Day ago7:50 lol

Dmitry ProtasovDay agoIs it possible to make a video with an ideological explanation of proofs of great theorems, such as Fermat’s Last Theorem or Goldbach’s Ternary Problem?

Ben SchulzDay agoSo this is where the Riemann hypothesis comes into play? It shows the divisibles of whole real numbers, and therefore the Primes distribution along the critical line?

King Hamlet4 days agoIs relative to agent salts Good Plates

Michael McDonald4 days agohaha you factor the gausian integers. I do that all the time but go ahead and show everyone else.

Gary Barbour II6 days agoDidn't they just find a legitimate formula for prime numbers?

And wouldn't that mean that some function of that formula could be used to go from an *approximate* formula for pi, to an *actual* formula for pi?

Gary Barbour II4 days ago@Thomas Pallister isn't it only actual in the hypothetical sense? Don't have to extend the formula as you require more digits? Meaning every application of the formula is a truncated version of the true answer, albeit as accurate as it needs to be. For all practical purposes it works fine, and it really does not need to be used at all, since you can get the value for pi to as many digits as you want and use it as a constant. But I am curious about a more direct approach, such that other interesting characteristics of the formula could be useful or beautiful for unforseen reasons.

Thomas Pallister4 days agoThere have been several formulas, but none are efficiently computable. So I guess you could do that, but the formula for pi is already actual. I don't know what you mean by it being approximate

SMART BLACKPINK7 days agoOr you can just look at the list of Pythagorean triples instead of making and editing then uploading a half an hour long video

Antanis3 days agoHe's already made a video for visualizing all of the pythagorean triples too. That's a fun watch as well.

Jayraj Karelia7 days agoIn love with ' Pi '

Looks so innocent.

Atharva #breakthrough7 days agoneedlessly complex?

Nicholas Natale8 days ago30 minute video, no ads.

Honestly, I wouldn’t mind 2 or 3 ads in this video, because I know it helps you. To know that you can spend weeks, maybe even months making a video, and choosing not to put any ads in it, just shows that you are doing this for our entertainment and our entertainment only. Thank you, you just earned another like.

JackFlashTech8 days agoWas this the first part of Euler’s proof that e^(i*pi) - 1= 0? Or did this come later? Because that infinite series has a relation to cosine and sine, which is where the 1 comes in, right?

Rex Rex8 days agoBeautiful....in the most gaussy and sheeniest of ways 😍😉

Nomekop 7778 days ago7:50 "They're called the Gaussian integers, named after [picture change] Martin Sean."

I feel like there's a joke there but I don't get it

Rex Rex8 days ago^{+1}Doppelganger

BrakeTheGame10 days ago5:25 aaaaaah i see a black spot moving inside the yellow dots

Irene Adriani10 days agoBoy you are gold

Argo Lake11 days ago^{+1}Martin Sheen was the voice for A. Square in the movie of Flatland.

G2W11 days agoWe totally understand what you're saying.

Caleborg12 days agoWhy do u portray the student pi guys as always angry? we wouldnt be watching these videos if we didn't like math. make us pi guys look happy! ;)

Lorenzo Sarria12 days ago^{+1}The reason why there are no lattice points for the numbers that are 3 more than a multiple of 4 is that the numbers that can be factored are the sum of 2 squares (The Pythagorean triples visualized video helps explain this), and numbers that are 3 more than a multiple of 4 can’t be written as a sume of 2 squares because all squares are either 1 o 0 more than a multiple of 4

Tato Chan12 days ago^{+1}your videos talk about stuff i studied in math class in 9th grade and the next second it sounds like witchcraft

Alchemy Phoenix14 days agoYou are the best teacher I have ever seen. I don't even care about math that much and I just get sucked into every one of these.

Miguel Iglesias14 days ago^{+7}I wonder what's behind naming the Gaussian integers after Martin Sheen.

Not sure why, but I really do.

Miguel Iglesias8 days ago^{+1}@Rex Rex, you're right. They do look alike. I was thinking more of an abstract kind of opposite resemblance than a direct physical one; as if Martin Sheen had a reputation of being not particularly good with numbers. Something like Cheech and Chong as the Surgeon Generals on the use of drugs.

Rex Rex8 days ago^{+1}Doppelganger....of sorts

Joy Godwin William Henry14 days agoYou are awesome

Joy Godwin William Henry14 days agoDid you find this ?

Kenneth Garringer14 days agoAdvanced witchcrafts

Kenneth Garringer14 days agoKings and Queen's pi chart.

Kenneth Garringer14 days agoArtist ic

Kenneth Garringer14 days agoGreat stuff CSI. Scene

Kenneth Garringer14 days agoAlmost witchcraft

Kenneth Garringer14 days agoHow we advanced NASA. Stellar stealthier

Kenneth Garringer14 days agoGreat for solving crimes

Angel Mendez-Rivera14 days ago*Theorem:* No natural number n > 0 such n = 3 mod 4 can be written as a^2 + b^2, where a and b are integers.

*Proof:*

If a = 0 mod 2, then a = 2k for some integer k, implying a^2 = (2k)^2 = 4k^2 = 2(2k^2) = 0 mod 2 = 0 mod 4.

If a = 1 mod 2, then a = 2k + 1, implying a^2 = (2k + 1)^2 = 4k^2 + 4k + 1 = 1 mod 4.

Since a and b are arbitrary, this implies that if b = 0 mod 2, then b^2 = 0 mod 4, and if b = 1 mod 2, then b^2 = 1 mod 4.

Therefore, if a = 0 mod 2 and b = 0 mod 2, then a^2 + b^2 = 0 mod 4; and if a = 0 mod 2 and b = 1 mod 2, or vice versa, then a^2 + b^2 = 1 mod 4; and if a = 1 mod 2 and b = 1 mod 2, then a^2 + b^2 = 2 mod 4.

Since every case is covered above, no case can result in a^2 + b^2 = 3 mod 4. Q. E. D.

*Note:* I know the equality sign is abuse of notation when talking about modulo classes. I lack a mathematical keyboard, so you will have to simply accept the abuse of notation for now.

What this all implies is that prime integers 3 mod 4 are Gaussian primes.

Norma Black9.1.518 days agoZero's not even the number dummies

Norma Black9.1.518 days agoThat's not even all the numbers 1 2 3 4 5 fire engine helmet six seven eight nine

Norma Black9.1.518 days ago^{+1}1+1=3

Abbe Nylund21 day ago^{+1}16:26 he sounds hella mad when someone touched his system

"What if you introduce a factor like 3?"

*well that really mucks up the whole system*

"Oh... okay I'm sor-"

*there is no way that you can split up this 3, no matter where you put it, it leaves the columns imbalanced.*

CabanaCaseda21 day agoThe moment that bastard Pi shows up you spend days searching for the circle, you know that damn thing is somewhere

TTKND And Co.25 days ago3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051320005681271452635608277857713427577896091736371787214684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099605187072113499999983729780499510597317328160963185950244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881710100031378387528865875332083814206171776691473035982534904287554687311595628638823537875937519577818577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201988

Luke Roberts25 days agoI did six edibles and watched this and I know this sounds clishe but you just blew my fucking mind thank you man

Jean-Yves BOULAY26 days agoPi and Golden Number: not random occurrences of the ten digits

Number Pi and the Golden Section as well as the inverse of these numbers are made up of a series of apparently random decimal places. This paper is on the occurrence order of the 10 digits of decimal system in these fundamental mathematic numbers. It is in fact that the ten digits of decimal system does not appear randomly in the sequence of Pi and in Golden Section. Also, same phenomena operate in many other constants of which the square roots of numbers 2, 3 and 5, the first three prime numbers.

Read more at //jyboulaypublications.e-monsite.com/

Kiên P.S.29 days ago22:15 I understand that the number choices we have for 5^3 is (3+1), but how do you know that you can also express the number of choices for 5^3 as x(1)+x(5)+x(5^2)+x(5^3) (I've understood the x(n) function)?

Tiqerboy29 days agolet's see if I understood what you just presented.

Those numbers in red are the poison pills. If R of the circle contains just one of these as a factor, it nukes everything and therefore no lattice points are hit. You need them in pairs.

The numbers in green are good guys. If R contains one of them, you get 8 lattice points in return for each of these. These numbers also look like pythagorean numbers to me, because they represent the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle as that integer, where each leg of the triangle is an integer length.

The numbers in yellow are neutral. If R has them as factors, the number of lattice points stay the same.

So, for a circle to hit lots of lattice points, you want R to contain tons of green numbers, NO red numbers and okay to have yellow numbers.

Now, you'd think 33 would be a GREEN number since it's one higher than 32 (a factor of four). Unfortunately it's not prime as 33 = 11 x 3. Two RED numbers. And since these need to be paired up, 33 would nuke everything so a circle of R = sqrt(33) hits NO lattice points.

Sateakersd LdsalderMonth agoyou learn more here!

JohnSikes73Month ago^{+1}For people interested in this kind of results (which belongs to a branch called analytic number theory), you can read this book called “Analytic number theory” by Tom.M.Apostol. I was always inclined towards number theory since childhood. When I went to college, this book became my bible. :-)

MARBLE_ L3MURMonth agoYou may have been asked already, but where did you get that "as easy as pi" mug?

latiMonth agoW O A H

SUOMYNONAMonth ago^{+1}I'm so baffled by how high the like:dislike ratio on this video is. Usually the randomness of USclip users garuntees at least 5% dislikes. This video 98.8% likes.

That's awesome.

Aerospace Engineering with Brian McNultyMonth agoDude, you are a maniac! These videos are so good, we use them in linear algebra at my college. How long does it take to do something like this, and which language do you use to program these visualizations? AMAZING!

iUFOmMonth agoTHANK YOU.

Konstantin KouptsovMonth ago❤️

Robert MaklovitzMonth agoThis chi function is epic

Gwebanget ForeverMonth agoAfter series calculation completed, there is a conclusion that the outer limit area is bigger than the circular area, it doesn't necessarily the outer LENGTH is bigger than circumference LENGTH. the constant "3.14159" is correct for 2D, but for 1D, it's "3.17157" (times 2).

3141592 65358979323846Month agoI wish I would have had such a math teacher at highschool!!

H.M. CHOMonth ago^{+1}I'm really proud of myself who clicked the video and found out the channel!

jhony angaritaMonth agoUna línea curva no es una línea recta ni está compuesta por líneas rectas

jhony angaritaMonth ago3.14159... es la mitad de la sumatoria de los lados de un polígono regular la circunferencia no es un polígono regular es una curva cerrada

Los cálculos que se hace para calcular los lados de polígonos regulares qué están dentro de la circunferencia lo cual quiere decir que el perímetro de la circunferencia es mayor

Jenny -s77Month agoWho s the teatcher? 😂

Wild Animal ChannelMonth agoI doth my cap to you, Sir.