Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

๐Ÿ”ฐ ๐—ง๐—ก๐—– ๐—ฃ๐—ผ๐—ฑ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐˜ *winning* special ๐Ÿ”œ ๐ŸŽฌ So give us your #NCFC โคต๏ธ โ“ Questions ๐Ÿ“ƒ Statements ๐Ÿคฌ Rฬถaฬถnฬถtฬถsฬถ (have a week off) ๐Ÿคฉ RAVES Jack Reeve & Chris Reeve will react to as many as possibleโ€ฆ

11,198 views โ€ข 8 months ago โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

We're changing up our editorial process for the PFF big boards and mock draft sim this year to make things on both ends as genuine and realistic as possible. The way we've done that is by separating my personal big board from the one the MDS will run off. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN: The video below shows how to understand and navigate PFF's big boards page properly. When you go to the landing page, the first big board you will see will be our new "PFF's 2026 Predictive Board". This is the board the MDS will run off, and currently has 449 prospects ranked for you to draft (the top 255 have been personally ranked by me with the rest of the names gathered from All-Star Bowl watch lists with early consensus thoughts taken into player placement). The purpose of this board is to give us the freedom to let the MDS be as realistic as possible, even if we/I don't see a player as high or as low as the NFL might. This board will be updated weekly throughout the college football season, and then continuously throughout draft season. If you go to the right side of the screen you will see a setting button labeled "sources". If you click that you can go over to the "version" tab and see my personal big board to click and load. I will never have a player on my board who I have not personally watched. Right now there are 255 ranked on my board with many more coming with every passing week. I'll also do plenty of re-checks throughout the year to make it as up-to-date as possible. As stated before, this new process allows me to be as genuine as possible with my personal rankings while giving PFF subscribers enhanced realism and depth when using the MDS at any point of the year. Hope y'all enjoy the changes, and happy drafting!

Trevor Sikkema

219,608 views โ€ข 11 months ago

๐Ÿšจ In the new episode of my AfterMath series, I ask: Can a computer reach the full capacity of the human mind? With the recent advances in AI, this has become a hot topic for debate. I focus on the area I know best: mathematics. And I further narrow it down to the question: Can a computer be as good as a human in dealing with natural numbers? (Numbers like 0,1,2,3,4, and so on.) I make an important distinction between Type I and Type II statements about natural numbers. Statements of Type I are about specific numbers (here computers excel), and statements of Type II are GENERAL statements that apply to ALL NUMBERS at once (such as Fermat's Last Theorem). Mathematics is about Type II statements, and in this domain computers hit a wall, which I'd like to call the "Turing Wall." The problem is that Type II statements can't be reduced to Type I statements as computer's memory is finite. To handle Type II statements, one has to use FORMAL SYSTEMS, in which we symbolically encode properties of natural numbers, so they could be programmed on a computer. Once we choose the axioms and the rules of inference, we can run a computer, and it will produce many true statements about natural numbers. However, Tarski's Undefinability Theorem, which I introduce in this episode (it is closely related to Gรถdel's Incompleteness Theorems but is even more relevant to these issues, in my opinion), shows that this way we can NOT get all true statements about natural numbers. In fact, the notion of "true statement" is not contained in a formal system. To introduce this notion in a given formal system, one has to choose a model of this formal system, and there are many inequivalent models. Large Language Models give mathematicians a great tool for research, but they can't be used effectively for the kinds of foundational questions of mathematics we are discussing here. At the end of the episode, I go back to the 3-dimensional sphere I talked about in Episode 2. I give a 4-dimensional spacetime demonstration of it, using... a balloon. ๐Ÿ˜ƒ In a future video, I am planning to discuss the 3-dimensional sphere in more detail with my friend . See the links to the entire episode below.โคต๏ธโคต๏ธ

Edward Frenkel

107,086 views โ€ข 11 months ago