쉐도잉 연습: The Banach–Tarski Paradox - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

Hey Vsauce, Michael here.

There's a famous way to seemingly create chocolate out of nothing.

Maybe you've seen it before.

This chocolate bar is four squares by eight squares.

But if you cut it like this, and then like this, and finally like this,

you can rearrange the pieces like so and wind up with the same four by eight bar,

but with a leftover piece apparently created out of thin air.

There's a popular animation of this illusion as well.

I call it an illusion because it's just that, fake.

In reality, the final bar is a bit smaller.

It contains this much less chocolate.

Each square along the cut is shorter than it was in the original, but the cut makes it difficult to notice right away.

The animation is extra misleading because it tries to cover up its deception.

The lost height of each Each square is surreptitiously added in while the piece moves to make it hard to notice.

I mean, come on.

Obviously, you cannot cut up a chocolate bar and rearrange the pieces into more than you started with.

- Okay.

Or can you?

One of the strangest theorems in modern mathematics is the Banach -Tarski paradox.

It proves that there is in fact a way to take an object and separate it into five different pieces. of the original item.

Same density, same size, same everything.

Seriously, to dive into the mind blow that it is and the way it fundamentally questions math and ourselves,

we have to start by asking a few questions.

First, what is infinity?

A number?

I mean, it's nowhere on the number line, but we often say things like, "There's an infinite number of blah blah blah.

And as far as we know, infinity could be real.

The universe may be infinite in size and flat, extending out forever and ever without end,

beyond even the part we can't observe or ever hope to observe.

That's exactly what infinity is.

Not a number per se, but rather a size.

the size of something that doesn't end.

Infinity is not the biggest number.

Instead, it is how many numbers there are.

But there are different sizes of infinity.

The smallest type of infinity is countable infinity, the number of hours in forever.

It's also the number of whole numbers that there are, natural numbers, the numbers we use when counting things like 1,

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and so on.

Sets like these are unending, but they are countable.

Countable means that you can count them from one element to any other in a finite amount of time.

Even if that finite amount of time is longer than you will live, or the universe will exist for, it's still finite.

Uncountable infinity, on the other hand, is literally bigger.

Too big to even count.

The number of real numbers that there are, not just whole numbers, but all numbers, is uncountably infinite.

You literally cannot count even from zero to one in a finite amount of time by naming every real number in between.

I mean, where do you even start?

Zero?

Okay, but What comes next?

0 .000000.

Eventually, we would imagine a 1 going somewhere at the end, but there is no end.

We could always add another 0.

Uncountability makes this set so much larger than the set of all whole numbers

that even between 0 and 1 there are more numbers than there are whole numbers on the entire endless number line.

Derokantor's famous diagonal argument helps illustrate this.

Imagine listing every number between 0 and 1.

Since they are uncountable and can't be listed in order, let's imagine randomly generating them forever with no repeats.

Bye.

Each number we generate can be paired with a whole number.

If there's a one -to -one correspondence between the two, that is if we can match one whole number to each real number on our list,

that would mean that countable and uncountable sets are the same size.

But we can't do that.

Even though this list goes on forever, Forever isn't enough.

Watch this.

If we go diagonally down our endless list of real numbers and take the first decimal of the first number, and the second of the second number,

the third of the third, and so on, and add one to each, subtracting one if it happens to be a nine,

we can generate a new real number that is obviously between 0 and 1,

but since we've defined it to be different from every number on our endless list in at least one place,

It's clearly not contained in the list.

In other words, we've used up every single whole number, the entire infinity of them,

and yet we can still come up with more real numbers.

Here's something else that is true but counterintuitive.

There are the same number of even numbers as there are even and odd numbers.

At first, that sounds ridiculous.

Clearly there are only half as many even numbers as all whole numbers.

But that intuition is wrong.

The set of all whole numbers is denser, but every even number can be matched with a whole number.

You will never run out of members of either set, so this one -to -one correspondence shows that both sets are the same size.

In other words, infinity divided by two is still infinity.

Infinity plus one is also infinity. of the Grand Hotel.

Imagine a hotel with a countably infinite number of rooms.

But now, imagine that there is a person booked into every single room.

Seemingly, it's fully booked.

Right?

No. Infinite sets go against common sense.

You see, if a new guest shows up and wants a room, all the hotel has to do is move the guest in room number one to room number two.

And the guest in room two to room three and three to four and four to five and so on.

Because the number of rooms is never ending, we cannot run out of rooms.

Infinity minus one is also infinity again.

If one guest leaves the hotel, we can shift every guest the other way.

Guest two goes to room one, three to two, four to three, and so on.

Because we have an infinite amount of guests, that is a never -ending supply of them, no room will be left empty As it turns out,

you can subtract any finite number from infinity and still be left with infinity.

It doesn't care.

It's unending.

Banoktarski hasn't left our sights yet.

All of this is related.

We are now ready to move on to Shapes.

Hilbert's Hotel can be applied to a circle.

Points around the circumference can be thought of as guests.

100

If we remove one point from the circle, That point is gone.

101

Right?

102

Infinity tells us it doesn't matter.

103

The circumference of a circle is irrational.

104

It's the radius times 2 pi.

105

So if we mark off points beginning from the hole, every radius length along the circumference going clockwise,

106

we will never land on the same point twice.

107

Ever.

108

has checked out, we can just shift the rest, move them counterclockwise, and every room will be filled.

109

Point 1 moves to fill in the hole.

110

Point 2 fills in the place where point 1 used to be.

111

3 fills in 2 and so on.

112

Since we have an unending supply of numbered points, No hole will be left unfilled.

113

The missing point is forgotten.

114

we apparently never needed it to be complete.

115

There's one last neato consequence of infinity we should discuss before tackling Bonnachtarski.

116

Ian Stewart famously proposed a brilliant dictionary, one that he called the Hyper Webster.

117

The Hyper Webster lists every single possible word of any length formed from the 26 letters in the English alphabet.

118

It begins with A followed by AA, then AAA, then AAAA, and after an infinite number of those,

119

AB then ABA, then ABAA, ABAAA, and so on until Z.

120

ZA, ZAA, etc, etc, until the final entry, an infinite sequence of Zs.

121

Such a dictionary would contain every single word.

122

Nay, every single thought, definition, description, truth, lie, name, story, what happened to Amelia Earhart would be in that dictionary.

123

as well as every single thing that didn't happened to Amelia Earhart.

124

everything that could be said using our alphabet.

125

Obviously, it would be huge.

126

But the company publishing it might realize that they could take a shortcut.

127

If they put all the words that begin with "A" in a volume titled "A", they wouldn't have to print the initial "A".

128

Readers would know to just add the A because it's the A volume.

129

By removing the initial A, the publisher is left with every A word Sans the first A.

130

which has surprisingly become every possible word.

131

Just one of the 26 volumes has been decomposed into the entire thing.

132

It is now.

133

that we're ready to investigate this video's titular paradox.

134

What if we turned an object, a 3D thing, into a Hyper Webster?

135

Could we decompose pieces of it into the whole thing?

136

Yes.

137

The first thing we need to do is give every single point on the surface of the sphere, one name and one name only.

138

A good way to do this is to name them after how they can be reached by a given starting point.

139

If we move this starting point across the surface of the sphere in steps that are just the right length,

140

no matter how many times or in what direction we rotate, So long as we never backtrack, it will never wind up in the same place twice.

141

We only need to rotate in four directions to achieve this paradox: up, down, left and right, around two perpendicular axes.

142

We are going to need every single possible sequence

143

that can be made of any finite length out of just these four rotations.

144

That means we will need left, right, up and down, as well as left left,

145

left up, left down, but of course not left right because, well, that's backtracking.

146

Going left and then right means you're the same as you were before you did anything.

147

So, no left rights, no right lefts, and no up downs, and no down ups.

148

Also, notice that I'm writing the rotations in order right to left.

149

So the final rotation is the leftmost letter.

150

That will be important later on.

151

Anyway, a list of all possible sequences of allowed rotations that are finite in length, is Well, huge.

152

countably infinite, in fact.

153

But if we apply each one of them to a starting point, in green here, and then name the point we land on after the sequence that brought us there,

154

we can name a countably infinite set of points on the surface.

155

Let's look at how, say, these four strings on our list would work.

156

right up left.

157

Okay, rotating the starting point this way takes us here.

158

Let's color code the point based on the final rotation in its string.

159

In this case, it's left and and for that we will use purple.

160

Next up, "Down, down." that sequence takes us here.

161

We name the point DD and color it blue since we ended with a down rotation.

162

RDR, that will be this point's name, takes us here, and for a final right rotation, let's use red.

163

Finally, for a sequence that ends with "up", let's color code the point.

164

Orange.

165

Now, if we imagine completing this process for every single sequence, we will have a countably infinite number of points named and color -coded.

166

That's great!

167

But not enough there are an uncountably infinite number of points on a spheres.

168

surface.

169

But no worries, we can just pick a point we missed.

170

any point and color it green, making it a new starting point, and then run every sequence from here.

171

After doing this, to an uncountably infinite number of starting points, we will have indeed named and colored every single point on the surface.

172

just once.

173

with the exception of Poles.

174

Every sequence has two poles of rotation, locations on the sphere that come back to exactly where they started.

175

for any sequence of right, or left rotations, the poles are the north and south poles.

176

The problem with poles like these is

177

that more than one sequence can lead us to them they can be named more than once

178

and be colored in more than one color.

179

For example, if you follow some other sequence to the North or South Pole, any subsequent rights or lefts will be equally valid names.

180

In order to deal with this, we're going to just count them out of the normal scheme and color them all yellow.

181

Every sequence has two, so there are a countably infinite amount of them.

182

Now, with every point on the sphere given just one name, in just one of six colors we are ready to take the entire sphere apart.

183

Every point on the surface corresponds to a unique line of points below it,

184

all the way to the center point and we will be dragging every points line along with it.

185

The lone center point we will set aside.

186

Okay, first we cut out and extract all the yellow poles.

187

the green starting points, the orange up points the blue down points, and the red and purple left and right points.

188

That's the entire sphere.

189

With just these pieces, you could build the whole thing.

190

But take a look at the left piece.

191

It is defined by being a piece composed of every point accessed via a sequence ending with a left rotation.

192

If we rotate this piece right, that's the same as adding an R to every point's name.

193

But left and then right is a backtrack.

194

They cancel each other out.

195

And look what happens when we reduce them away.

196

The set becomes the same as a set of all points with names that end with L,

197

but also U, D, and every point reached with no rotation.

198

That's the full set of starting points.

199

We have turned less than a quarter of the sphere into nearly three quarters.

200

Just by rotating it, we added nothing.

201

It's like the Hyper Webster.

202

If we add the right piece and the poles of rotation in the center point, well, we've got the entire sphere again, but with stuff left over.

203

To make a second copy, let's rotate the up piece down.

204

The down -ups cancel because, well, it's the same as going nowhere, and we're left with a set of all starting points,

205

the entire up piece, the right piece and the left piece But there's a problem here.

206

We don't need this extra set of starting points.

207

We still haven't used the original ones.

208

No worries.

209

Let's just start over we can just move everything from the up piece that turns into a starting point when rotated down.

210

That means every point whose final rotation is up.

211

Let's put them in the down piece.

212

Of course, after rotating, points named UU will just turn into points named U.

213

And that would give us a copy here and here.

214

So, as it turns out, we need to move all points with any name that is just a string of U's.

215

We will put them in the down piece and rotate the up piece down, which makes it congruent to the up, right, and left pieces.

216

Add in the down piece along with some up and the starting point piece and, well, we're almost done.

217

Rotation and center are missing from this copy, but no worries.

218

There's a countably infinite number of holes where the poles of rotation used to be.

219

Which means there is some pole around which we can rotate this sphere such that every pole hole orbits around

220

without hitting another.

221

Well, this is just a bunch of circles with one point missing.

222

We fill them each like we did earlier.

223

And we do the same for the center point.

224

Imagine a circle that contains it inside the sphere and just fill in from infinity.

225

And look what we've done.

226

We have taken one sphere, and turned it into two identical spheres without adding Anything.

227

1 plus 1 equals 1.

228

Thank you.

229

That took a while to go through, but the implications are huge and mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers are still debating them.

230

Could such a process happen in the real world I mean, it can happen mathematically, and math allows us to abstractly predict

231

and describe a lot of things in the real world with amazing accuracy.

232

But does the Banach -Tarski paradox take it too far?

233

Is it a place where math and physics Separate.

234

We still don't know.

235

History is full of examples of mathematical concepts developed in the abstract that we

236

did not think would ever apply to the real world for years,

237

decades, centuries, until Eventually, science caught up and realized they were totally applicable and useful,

238

The Bonnachtarski paradox could actually happen in our real world.

239

The only catch, of course, is that the five pieces you cut your object into aren't simple shapes,

240

they must be infinitely complex and detailed That's not possible to do in the real world, where measurements can only get so small,

241

and there's only a finite amount of time to do anything.

242

but math says it's theoretically valid and some scientists think it may be physically valid 2.

243

There have been a number of papers published suggesting a link between Banach Tarski,

244

and the way tiny, tiny subatomic particles can collide.

245

high energies and turn into more particles than we began with.

246

We are finite creatures.

247

Our lives are small, and can only scientifically consider a small part of reality,

248

What's common for us is just a sliver of what's available.

249

We can only see so much of the electromagnetic spectrum.

250

We can only delve so deep into extensions of space.

251

Common sense applies to that which we can access.

252

But common sense is just that.

253

"common." If total sense is what we want, we should be prepared to accept that we shouldn't call infinity weird or strange.

254

The results we've arrived at by accepting it are valid, true within the system we use to understand, measure, predict, and order the universe.

255

Perhaps the system still needs perfecting.

256

But at the end of the day, history continues to show us that the universe isn't strange.

257

We are.

258

And as always, thanks for watching there that really helped me wrap my mind kind of, around Banat Tarski.

259

First of all, Leonard Wapner's The Pea and The Sun.

260

This book is fantastic and it's full of a lot of the preliminaries needed to understand the proof that comes later.

261

He also talks a lot about the ramifications of what Bonnachtarski and their theorem might mean for mathematics.

262

Also, if you want to talk about math and whether it's discovered or invented, whether it really truly will map onto the universe, .

263

Yanofsky's...

264

The Outer Limits of Reason is great.

265

This is the favorite book of mine that I've read this entire year.

266

Another good one is E.

267

Brian Davies.

268

Why Beliefs Matter.

269

This is actually Korn's favorite book as you might be able to see there.

270

It's delicious and full of lots of great information about the limits of what we can know, and what science is, and what mathematics is.

271

If you love infinity and math, I cannot more highly recommend Matt Parker's Things to Make and Do in the Fourth Dimension.

272

He is hilarious and this book is very very great at explaining some pretty awesome things.

273

So, Keep reading and if you're looking for something to watch, I hope you've already watched Kevin Lieber's film on Field Day.

274

I already did a documentary about Whittier, Alaska over there.

275

Kevin's got a great short film about putting things out on the internet and having people react to them.

276

There's a rumor that Jake Roper might be doing something on Field Day soon, so check out mine, check out Kevin's,

277

and subscribe to Field Day for upcoming Jake Roper action, yeah?

278

He's actually in this room right now.

279

Say hi, Jake.

280

Hi.

281

Thanks for filming this by the way.

282

Guys, I really appreciate

283

who you all are, and as always, thanks for watching.

📺 같은 채널

✨ 추천 영상

10 문장

Box of Goodies | The Big Bang Theory

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

55 문장

Convergence and Divergence: The Return of Sequences and Series

Cambridge Exam PrepUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

48 문장

The Paradox of an Infinite Universe

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

10 문장

The Most Important Picture in the History of Science

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

86 문장

The End of Human Mathematics? AI's Recent Breakthrough -- And What's Next

Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

582 문장

You've (Likely) Been Playing The Game Of Life Wrong

Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

104 문장

How real are the real numbers, really?

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

62 문장

A mind-blowing explanation of symmetry | Frank Wilczek for Big Think

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

이 비디오로 말하기 연습을 하는 이유는 무엇일까요?

이 비디오에서는 Banach-Tarski의 역설에 대해 설명하고 있습니다. 이 주제는 수학의 복잡성을 탐구하는 동시에 우리 사고의 틀을 확장시키는 매력을 지니고 있습니다. 이러한 맥락에서 유튜브 비디오를 통해 영어로 말하기 연습을 하는 것은 다음과 같은 여러 가지 이점을 제공합니다.

비유와 비유적 표현: 복잡한 개념을 설명할 때 사용할 수 있는 다양한 비유적 표현을 익힐 수 있습니다.
전문 용어 습득: '무한', '상수', '해석하다'와 같은 수학 및 철학적 용어를 실생활의 맥락 속에서 이해하고 말할 수 있게 됩니다.
청취 및 발음 향상: 내용을 따라하며 듣기 능력과 발음을 강화할 수 있습니다.

이와 같은 이유로 shadow speech 기법을 활용하여 비디오의 내용을 반복하며 연습할 수 있는데, 이는 유창성을 갖춘 IELTS 스피킹 준비에도 매우 효과적입니다.

문맥에서의 문법 및 표현

비디오 속에서 다양한 문법 구조와 표현이 사용됩니다. 주요 구조는 다음과 같습니다:

‘There is/There are’ 구문: 존재를 나타내기 위해 종종 사용되며, 예: “There is, in fact, a way…”
‘If’ 조건문: 가정이나 조건을 설정할 때 유용합니다. 본문의 예: “If there's a one-to-one correspondence...”
수동태: 주어가 동작을 받는 구조, 예: “...is achieved”로 불확실성을 표현합니다.

이러한 문법 구조는 일상 대화에서도 자주 사용되므로, 유튜브 영어 공부를 통해 잘 익혀두면 좋습니다.

일반적인 발음 문제

영상에는 몇 가지 발음 또는 억양의 문제점이 존재합니다. 특히 다음의 단어들은 발음할 때 주의해야 합니다:

‘اس(ек)’: 처음 듣기에는 혼동을 줄 수 있는 발음입니다.
‘infinity’(인피니티): 강세와 발음의 혼돈이 발생할 수 있어 주의가 필요합니다.
‘correspondence’(코레스폰던스): 여러 음절로 이루어진 만큼 자연스럽게 발음하는 연습이 필요합니다.

이런 단어들을 발음하면서 shadowspeak으로 반복 연습하면 발음이 훨씬 매끄러워질 것입니다. 영어 의사소통 능력을 한 단계 끌어올리는 데 큰 도움이 될 겁니다.

이 영상의 문법

화자가 가장 많이 쓰는 문형을 영상 속 실제 표현과 함께 정리했습니다.

문형	영상 속 표현
“used to” used to + 동사 — 지금은 아닌 과거의 습관이나 상태	used to be
현재완료 have/has + 과거분사 — 과거의 일이 지금도 관련이 있을 때	you've seen · we've defined · hasn't left
수동태 be + 과거분사 — 누가 하는지보다 무슨 일이 일어나는지에 초점	can't be listed · can be paired · can be matched

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법

쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.

섀도잉 방법: 단계별 전체 가이드 읽기 →

쉐도잉 연습: The Banach–Tarski Paradox - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

What's Inside My Spherical Die?

A Cosmic Coincidence

My Dad Ranking

Is Anything Real?

I Built An Emordnilap Machine

The Future Of Reasoning

Why Are Things Cute?

Why Are Things Creepy?

All The Ghosts You Will Be

The inscribed square problem

Box of Goodies | The Big Bang Theory

Convergence and Divergence: The Return of Sequences and Series

The Paradox of an Infinite Universe

Fourier series

Why is Russia So DAMN BIG?

The Most Important Picture in the History of Science

The End of Human Mathematics? AI's Recent Breakthrough -- And What's Next

You've (Likely) Been Playing The Game Of Life Wrong

How real are the real numbers, really?

A mind-blowing explanation of symmetry | Frank Wilczek for Big Think

이 비디오로 말하기 연습을 하는 이유는 무엇일까요?

문맥에서의 문법 및 표현

일반적인 발음 문제

이 영상의 문법

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법