The Unbeatable Game from the 60s: Dr NIM
Stand-up Maths1 HN recommender · recommended in 1 month, 2016-2023
7.2M views · 10 years ago · explainer · evergreen
Matt Parker of Stand-up Maths explains single-pile Nim and the trick that wins it, using Dr NIM, a 1960s mechanical plastic computer that plays perfectly. He teaches the strategy so viewers can beat friends.
HN links it as a fun explanation of the purely mechanical Dr. Nim game in threads about early game computers and marble-based binary math.
1:11:48Math Encounters -- Five Balls, Two Hands: The Patterns of Juggling -- Colin Wright (Presentation)
National Museum of Mathematics
33K views • 14 years ago
57:03HACKENBUSH: a window to a new world of math
Owen Maitzen
562K views • 5 years ago
13:59MENACE: the pile of matchboxes which can learn
Stand-up Maths
453K views • 8 years ago
39:47How lucky is too lucky?: The Minecraft Speedrunning Dream Controversy Explained
Stand-up Maths
8.4M views • 5 years ago
14:27A simple trick to design your own solutions for Rubik's cubes
Mathologer
1.6M views • 10 years ago
9:22The Best (and Worst) Ways to Shuffle Cards - Numberphile
Numberphile
2.3M views • 11 years ago
16:18Computer program that learns to play classic NES games
suckerpinch
2.2M views • 13 years ago
1:03:07Clutching at Random Straws, Matt Parker | LMS Popular Lectures 2010
London Mathematical Society
601K views • 12 years ago
1:07:34What Happens When Maths Goes Wrong? - with Matt Parker
The Royal Institution
3.3M views • 7 years ago
22:54I Built a COMPUTER in Magic: The Gathering
Because Science
2M views • 7 years ago
7:56Pi and the Mandelbrot Set - Numberphile
Numberphile
881K views • 11 years ago
1:01:40Four Dimensional Maths: Things to See and Hear in the Fourth Dimension - with Matt Parker
The Royal Institution
3.1M views • 11 years ago
10:44P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo
hackerdashery
3.7M views • 12 years ago
19:31Math Magic
Vsauce
14M views • 10 years ago
9:20An astonishing old calculator - Numberphile
Numberphile
794K views • 8 years ago
8:29The Uncracked Problem with 33 - Numberphile
Numberphile
2M views • 11 years ago
14:06Surreal Numbers (writing the first book) - Numberphile
Numberphile
566K views • 10 years ago
32:32The Strange Math That Predicts (Almost) Anything
Veritasium
13.1M views • 1 year ago
32:11Darts in Higher Dimensions (with 3blue1brown) - Numberphile
Numberphile
2.1M views • 6 years ago
2:49Feynman :: Rules of Chess
defjam99b
1.4M views • 19 years ago
3 comments from Hacker News
If this kind of thing amuses you can buy a purely mechanical implementation called either Braino or Dr. Nim for about £10. Here's a video on the subject from Matt Parker @ Standup Maths. ▶ this video
"The new feudal aristocracy would be the ones running the demons." The question of ownership is huge and I think still underaddressed, even after some good work like the referenced Lena, or Tom Scott's "Welcome to Life: the singularity, ruined by lawyers" link . I was realizing a couple of weeks ago that if you do believe all the materialistic things cstross outlines, that a solid argument can be made that it may be never rational to upload your mind, on the ground that there is simply no circumstance I can imagine where you will "own" your own substrate. Arguably, owning your computational substrate is a fundamental aspect of life that we take for granted today. (Or, if you won't consider what you have now "ownership", at least nobody else does either.) But there is no circumstance in the forseeable future in which anyone can own their substrate. For a while I thought a rich person could do it, but then I thought about the entire supply chain involved in creating any brain scanner and subsequent computational device, and the amount of hardware left out in the real world where others can affect it, and I realized, you just can never assume that you are doing anything other than flinging yourself irrevocably into a locked box that is not under your control. Even if a rich person thinks they funded the entire project, brand new software, brand new hardware, there are thousands if not millions of points where either mistakes or deliberate sabotage for control may have been don
These remind me of Dr. Nim, the unbeatable single-player board game from the 60s, which also used marbles to do binary math: ▶ this video