Summer of Math Exposition

I really liked this video! The sound quality is a bit low and there's this weird chirp sound in the background (I can't tell if it was intentional or not). But the actual math was quite interesting. I would have rather you briefly talk about the circle problem in the beginning instead of referring to 3B1B's video on it.

What I like best about this is that it can ONLY work as a video. The animation perfectly matches to the explanation. A chart or an essay or anything else that dosen't move and is not animated would not get the point across as good as this video makes it.

Well done ! I quote bette than most Suggestion : be careful with the sound (your voice saturates sometimes, and a lot of birds in the fisrt part.)

love the clear visuals and explanation the best part for me (though it might not be the motive) was encouraging simulation to get to an answer - usually most practical problems in probability do not yield a straightforward solution

Audio level of the background bird noises is too high. There is a gap in explanation between the visual-based section and the written-math-based section. It would be helpful if you first walked through how to express the problem mathematically rather than just handing the mathematical expressions out and simplifying them. Not much care is taken in explaining the simplification of the written mathematics.

motivation 7/10 clarity 7/10 novelty 5/10 memorability 3/10

Itll be great to explain the circle problem a bit more and connect the dots to the third puzzle more explicitly

Nice video, explaining a familiar yet surprisingly flexible tool for solving probability problems. Good selection of problems, ranging from the simple coin problem (where I imagine most viewers could see the trick on their own) to a couple of unexpected applications. Very nice visualizations, especially the ones showing the pairings in the state space at 2:30 and 5:00. A couple of local criticisms: At 7:53, I don't understand why you chose to prove such a sweeping generalization here. Was the calculation in the k=1 case (the only case you discuss at all in the video) not complicated enough to make your point that your idea is simpler? At 4:34, I feel that the picture doesn't make it totally clear why it's always true that exactly one of the four choices works. The argument I'm familiar with is to characterize triangles containing the center as those with no >180-degree arcs between their corners. It's probably not necessary to resort to this explanation (which already gets you pretty close to the more "standard" solution to the problem), but perhaps another well-chosen sentence here could make it completely clear. (I'll also add, since this problem is so famous for answers relying on fallacies about continuous probability distributions, that it's a good thing the operations of reflecting the red/blue dots across the center preserve the underlying probability measure! Of course it makes perfect sense to not go on such a tangent in a video like this.)

Very well done! I enjoyed this video. I think it was well-paced, good examples given at important key points, and very pretty graphics and animations that complemented your words and helped make things easier to grasp. If you decide to, I hope you will make more! :D One thing that (maybe?) could be improved is a little more explanation of how we decide what information the Oracle should tell us, and why the original problem(s) are truly equivalent to their "oracle" versions. Perhaps a counter-example might be useful? Like an example of trying to reduce the problem to an oracle problem in the wrong way that changes the final answer? Could help make it clearer how we should go about setting up our oracles. On the other hand, it could just be me being too lazy to actually think thru things for myself. Either way, this is just a minor thing. Loved the video!

Right around 2:58 the audio is jumbled. Beautiful animations, nice progression of simple examples to more complex. The new perspective is powerful. Keep making videos!

This video was pretty good overall, but I must admit that I sort of got lost. I enjoyed it, and think it was well done, but there were a few spots where I just didn't quite follow the logic. Perhaps it went a bit too fast, or perhaps the critical information just needed to be emphasized a bit more.

I think oracle approach (deferred decision) wasn't explained enough.

Goal Orientation: 4/10 Novelty: 2/10 Thought-Provoking: 3/10 Comprehensibility: 3/10 Technological: 7/10 Overall Average: 3.8/10