The invention of the number 0, the discovery of irrational numbers, or l the realization that base 60 math makes sense for anything round, including timekeeping.
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
159 points (99.4% liked)
Ask Lemmy
32833 readers
2111 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
60 was chosen by the Ancient Sumerians specifically because of its divisibility by 2, 3, 4, and 5. Today, 60 is considered a superior highly composite number but that bit of theory wouldn’t have been as important to the Sumerians and Babylonians as the simple ability to divide 60 by many commonly used factors (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15) without any remainders or fractions to worry about.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Having watched all the veritasium math videos I feel like all the major breakthroughs in math were due to mathemicians playing around with numbers or brain teasers out of curiosity without a concrete use case in mind.
It’s crazy how engaging and well done Veritasium videos are and they’re just free to watch on YouTube.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If I recall correctly, one mathematician in the 1800s solved a very difficult line integral, and the first application of it was in early computer speech synthesis.
the man you're thinking of is, I believe, George Boole, the inventor of Boolean algebra.
A brain teaser about visiting all islands connected by bridges without crossing the same bridge twice is now the basis of all internet routing. (Graph theory)
freaking freaky little Russian outpost that one is. Bridges galore
Not math but the discovery of Thermus aquaticus was seemingly useless but later had profound applications in medicine. There's a good Veritasium video on it
The math fun fact I remember best from college is that Charles Boole invented Boolean algebra for his doctoral thesis and his goal was to create a branch of mathematics that was useless. For those not familiar with boolean algebra it works by using logic gates with 1s and 0s to determine a final 1 or 0 state and is subsequently the basis for all modern digital computing
Shoutout to Satyendra Nath Bose who helped pioneer relativity as a theoretical physicist because he didn't want to study something useful that would benefit the British.
load more comments
(1 replies)
George Boole introduced Boolean algebra, not Charles. Charles, according to this site on the Boole family, he had a career in management of a mining company.
Non-linear equations have entered the chat.
Chaos and non-linear dynamics were treated as a toy or curiosity for a pretty long time, probably in no small part due to the complexity involved. It's almost certainly no accident that the first serious explorations of it after Poincare happen after the advent of computers.
So, one place where non-linear dynamics ended up having applications was in medicine. As I recall it from James Gleick's book Chaos, inspired by recent discussion of Chaotic behavior in non-linear systems, medical doctors came up with the idea of electrical defibrillation- a way to reset the heart to a ground state and silence chaotic activity in lethal dysrhythmias that prevented the heart from functioning correctly.
Fractals also inspired some file compression algorithms, as I recall, and they also provide a useful means of estimating the perimeters of irregular shapes.
Also, there's always work being done on turbulence, especially in the field of nuclear fusion as plasma turbulence seems to have a non-trivial impact on how efficiently a reactor can fuse plasma.
A good friend of mine from high school got his physics PhD at University of Texas and went on to work in the high energy plasma physics lab there with the Texas Petawatt laser, and a lot of the experiments it was used for involved plasma turbulence and determining what path energetic particles would take in a hypothetical fusion reactor.
Be honest, how many unofficial experiments were there?
You ever just start lasering shit for kicks?
Probably not as many as we'd like to think. I recently got to run a few days of tests at Lawrence Livermore National Labs with an absurdly massive laser. At one point we needed to bring in a small speaker for an audio test. It took the lab techs and managers about two hours and a couple phone calls to some higher ups to make sure it was ok and wouldn't damage anything. There's so much red tape and procedure in the way that I don't think there's an opportunity to just fuck around. The laser has irreplaceable parts that people aren't willing to jeopardize. Newer or smaller lasers are going to be more relaxed. This one is old enough to be my father, and it's LLNL's second biggest single laser iirc. And they are the lab using lasers for fusion, so they have big lasers.
I've read that all modern cryptography is based on an area (number theory?) that was once only considered "useful" for party tricks.
prime number factorization is the basis of assymetric cryptography. basically, if I start with two large prime numbers (DES was 56bit prime numbers iirc), and multiply them, then the only known solution to find the original prime numbers is guess-and-check. modern keys use 4096-bit keys, and there are more prime numbers in that space than there are particles in the universe. using known computation methods, there is no way to find these keys before the heat death of the universe.
DES is symmetric key cryptography. It doesn't rely on the difficulty of factorizing large semi-primes. It did use a 56-bit key, though.
Public key cryptography (DSA, RSA, Elliptic Curve) does rely on these things and yes it's a 4096-bit key these days (up from 1024 in the older days).
thank you
load more comments
(1 replies)
Does this count? Because it really is wtf.
The exact example I also thought of from the question! Well done
Doom absolutely counts!
Quake, not Doom. Doom didn't use true 3D rendering and had almost no dynamic lighting.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Complex numbers. Also known as imaginary numbers. The imaginary number i is the solution to √-1. And it is really used in quantum mechanics and I think general relativity as well.
It's used extensively in electronic circuit design (where it's called "j", as "i' already meant electronic current).
Also signal processing has i or j all over it.
I’m the akshually guy here, but complex numbers are the combination of a real number and an imaginary number. Agree with you, just being pedantic.
Sure, but 1 is a real number. 😜
Yes, and 1 is also a complex number.
Of course, but 1 is the loneliest number.
2 is as bad as 1: it's the loneliest number since the number 1.
Electromagnetics as well.
load more comments
(4 replies)