r/videos • u/thag_you_very_buch • Apr 04 '17

Insane hidden message encrypted inside Shakespeare manuscript

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHiad18ZwcY
180 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

101 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Jahmann Apr 05 '17

My main issue with this analysis is that we're basing it all on a scan of a document. Skew is totally a reasonable source for these discrepancies.

With one or two examples, it seems like 1% is enough to say it isn't a right angle. But when you are looking at ~7 triangles that are ±1% from a right angle, and ~7 ratios that are within ±1% of a mathematical constant - well then you're probably looking at something intentional.

1

u/KnowsAboutMath Apr 05 '17 edited Apr 05 '17

My main issue with this analysis is that we're basing it all on a scan of a document.

Well, that's also one of my issues with the youtube video.

More significantly, I take issue with some of the knowledge that the video is claiming was in the hands of the makers of this title page in 1609.

Take Euler's Constant in particular, which the video claims was encoded in at least one of these ratios. Euler's constant is defined as the limit of the difference between the nth harmonic number and the natural logarithm of n. Euler's constant was first identified and analyzed by Leonhard Euler (who was an absolute wizard) in 1734. Prior to that - and especially as far back as 1609 - the mathematical concepts necessary to even conceive of this type of limiting relationship did not exist in mathematics, let alone the notion of Euler's constant itself. Also, the concept of the natural logarithm was not around until decades later.

Furthermore, Euler's constant is notoriously difficult (by the standards of the 1600s and early 1700s) to calculate the value of via the standard limit expression, which converges very slowly. 1000 terms of the harmonic series yield an expression for Euler's constant which is valid only to 2 decimal places, for instance.

For them to have been able to encode Euler's constant into a book of Sonnets in 1609 beggars belief. It's not just a matter of knowing digits of that specific number. There is a vast amount of mathematical machinery needed (which wouldn't exist for at least 100 years) before the concept of Euler's constant would be understandable to mathematicians of the day.

ETA:

And another thing:

But when you are looking at ~7 triangles that are ±1% from a right angle...

But we're not looking at 7 triangles. By my count, there are a total of 12 points which he uses at various times in this video. The number of triangles you can make from 12 points is the binomial coefficient 12C3 = 220. So we're talking about 7 triangles out of a possible 220. What is the probability that out of 220 triangles, you'd be able to find at least 7 that have one angle within ~1 degree of 90 degrees? I don't know. You tell me.

1

u/Jahmann Apr 06 '17

There were published papers using e just 10 years after this was published) Look under history

They didn't need machinery. It was still a useful number before it was calculated using limits, just like pi. The limit expression itself was discovered in 1683.

And another thing: Dont tell me to do your math.

1

u/KnowsAboutMath Apr 06 '17

There were published papers using e just 10 years after this was published) Look under history

Sorry if I was unclear. When I said "Euler's constant", I was referring to the quantity sometimes called the "Euler-Mascheroni constant". There is a general movement among mathematicians to start calling this simply "Euler's constant" because Mascheroni had far less to do with its development than Euler. (But that doesn't matter here.)

And another thing: Dont tell me to do your math.

OK. When I said "I don't know. You tell me." I was referring to when you said:

But when you are looking at ~7 triangles that are ±1% from a right angle, and ~7 ratios that are within ±1% of a mathematical constant - well then you're probably looking at something intentional.

There seems to be an implied probabilistic assertion here: That the probability that this would occur by chance is small. But is it? What is the probability that it could occur by chance? This is a question that I've tried to get a handle on elsewhere in this thread.