HackerTubewatch
Surprise me
Frame from The Uncracked Problem with 33 - Numberphile Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed

The Uncracked Problem with 33 - Numberphile

30 videos recommended on HN
YouTube
1 HN user recommended this explainer1 month2019–2023 score 1
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026

Linked in threads on sums of cubes and Diophantine equations as an accessible introduction.

Numberphile with Tim Browning on the sum-of-three-cubes problem and why 33 was the lowest unsolved case. The description notes a later solution for 33.

“Or watch videos about it” (HN, 2023)

1 recommendations · 2 citations · Explainers · partly dated

3 Hacker News comments

From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.

Citations, criticism and jokes

@heinrichf Mar 2019 Cites it
on HN thread Sum-of-Three-Cubes Problem Solved for ‘Stubborn’ Number 33
Numberphile video on the topic with Andrew Booker: [link] which is a followup from the 2015 episode [this video] when the 33 problem was unsolved. The announcement elicited this Mathoverflow discussion about "mic drop" moments in mathematics: [link]
2015 episode from when 33 was unsolved.
@jerf Sep 2019 Cites it
on HN thread 42 is found to be the sum of three cubes
Read more
I only recently heard what I think is a pretty solid answer to this question [1] that put it this way: We've pretty much got addition nailed down. We're pretty solid on multiplication. However, we are surprisingly weak mathematically when we try to put the two together; you can write down some extremely small math statements that baffled mathematicians for centuries, and for such statements that we have solutions for, they often get into very, very complicated math. So you have things like Fermat's Last Theorum, or if you prefer, the Question: For a^n + b^n = c^n, are there any solutions with n > 2 for integers? Note how it's just multiplication and addition on the integers. There are simpler questions, but they don't get much simpler. There's no real analysis, transcendental numbers, imaginaries or higher-dimensional numbers, infinities, and so on, at least not in the question itself; it's literally so simple you can reasonably explain it to a middle schooler. It took mathematicians centuries, and the simplest version of the current proof is still PhD-level work to understand. (I suspect even a Master's student in math would have to carefully craft their entire post-doc education for the purpose of understanding this exact proof to be able to say they fully understood it, with no lemmas taken on faith, and I'm still not sure they could make it without a lot of independent study.) You have things like "Can all of the numbers of a certain form be created via 'a^3 + b^3 + c^3'?

Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.

Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search
j k
Next / previous video
r
Surprise me
l
Like (video page)
w
Watch later (video page)
?
This help
Esc
Close