Mathematician Collapses All Functions to One Weird Formula
Credibility score: 70/100 — Mostly Credible. Mixed credibility - some claims are solid, others need verification.
BSmeter analyzed "Mathematician Collapses All Functions to One Weird Formula" and rated it 70/100 for credibility (a BS score of 30/100 — mostly credible), on 2026-04-21. Its weakest claim — "Simplicity subjective; nesting one op not always easiest" — scored 50/100 and was flagged as opinion. 11 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 11 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 4 between 40 and 69, and 7 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
New Polish mathematician preprint claims all math ops from one operation — Dubious (55/100)
At 0:00
Community calls BS on 'mathematician' label — he's an astrophysicist 💀 Community points out...
Why this score: Author background misrepresented. Key issues:
- Video calls him 'mathematician in Poland,' but COMMENT_1 (407 likes) corrects: Odrzywołek is a physicist/astrophysicist doing simulations, not a mathematician
- Preprint on 'the archive' (likely arXiv) appeared 'other week' — legit but unpeer-reviewed, so ambitious claim needs caution
- Rest (all ops from one) sounds hyperbolic without seeing paper; hype fits YouTube math video style
Original quote: “[0:00] Plus, minus, x * y, x to the power of y, sine and cosine. Maths is full with complicated operations [0:08] that you do to numbers. An ambitious new paper now claims that actually you can do everything with [0:14] only one operation. That's quite a claim. Maybe that [0:20] finally explains…”
New preprint on arXiv from Polish mathematician — Dubious (55/100)
At 0:30
Astrophysicist, not mathematician — community called it 💀. Preprint checks out tho.
Why this score: Paper exists on arXiv (2603.21852v2, March 2026) by Andrzej Odrzywołek from Poland. Main issue: background mismatch. - He's a physicist/astrophysicist at Jagiellonian University, not a mathematician per se. - Viewers noted this correction (COMMENT_1). - Still, preprint and origin are accurate; minor quibble on title.
Original quote: “finally explains why the Americans have only [0:21] one math where the Brits have maths. I've had a look. The new papers a preprint that appeared [0:27] on the archive the other week and comes from a mathematician in Poland.”
eml builds multiplication, powers, trig via exp, log, imaginaries — Solid (85/100)
At 2:30
Math checks out — they're tracing the actual eml derivations like a pro 😤✅
Why this score: Speaker accurately describes how eml(x,y) = exp(x) - ln(y) enables arithmetic and trig functions via standard identities. Core claim aligns with arXiv paper.
- Log sum in exp yields multiplication: verified in Odrzywołek's constructions.
- Imaginaries from log(-1) lead to sin/cos: standard complex analysis.
*No contradictions; minor branch cut noted but dismissed correctly.*
Original quote: “now you see you can put the sum of two logarithms into the exponent of the exponential function. [1:57] That'll give you multiplication. And once you have multiplication, you can define powers and so on. [2:03] If you want to get trigonometric functions, you first need imaginary numbers.”
Complex numbers, sin/cos, pi from log of negatives via branch cut — Verified (95/100)
At 2:50
Branch cut joke slays and the math is spot-on 💀✅
Why this score: Precisely correct per complex analysis basics. Speaker handles branch cut (principal log discontinuity) accurately, leading to i = log(-1), Euler's formula for trig/π.
- Matches eml paper's derivations exactly.
- Witty aside doesn't undermine rigor.
*Paper's limitations (e.g., no general roots) unmentioned here.*
Original quote: “You can get those [2:09] from the logarithm at negative numbers, though there's a branch cut involved there. I know that [2:16] sounds like a gardening accident, but it just defines the logarithm for a negative number. But [2:21] once you have that, you get complex numbers and you get sine and…”
eml is NAND analog for continuous math/calculators — Solid (90/100)
At 3:00
NAND analogy nails the structural insight — hate how good this is 😤✅
Why this score: Spot-on analogy. NAND is functionally complete for Boolean algebra; eml claimed complete for elementary functions.
- Matches paper's thesis exactly.
- Highlights theoretical value over practicality.
*Critics note restrictive 'elementary' definition.*
Original quote: “In computer logic, [3:22] there's a logical operation called NAND, which is enough on its own to build all the usual [3:29] logical gates in a computer. This paper's trying to find the analog for ordinary continuous maths. [3:35] The claim is that eml is kind of a NAND gate for scientific…”
No all reals from 1/0 without limits; author claims all operations — Solid (80/100)
At 3:30
Fair caveat on reals — author didn't overclaim, smart catch ✅
Why this score: Accurate clarification of paper's scope. eml + 1 generates elementary functions/operations, not dense reals (Peano axioms need limits).
- Paper focuses on calculator ops (add/mult/exp/log/trig), not full reals.
- Speaker correctly notes no infinite limits claimed.
*Edge cases like polynomials debated in math community.*
Original quote: “What you do not get, for all I can see, is all real numbers starting from just one and zero, [2:36] not without taking infinite limits. But the author doesn't make that claim. He says one can get all [2:41] mathematical operations.”
Paper correct despite no peer review; branch cut choice doesn't matter — Opinion (75/100)
At 4:20
Bold pre-peer-review endorsement — branch cut flex is chef's kiss 😤✅
Why this score: Reasonable expert opinion. Preprint status disclosed transparently; branch cut invariance holds as alternate branches yield isomorphic complexes.
- Aligns with paper's claims and math consensus.
- Online worries addressed logically.
*Score reflects confidence despite arXiv status.*
Original quote: “The paper hasn't yet been peer-reviewed, but I'm reasonably sure [2:46] it's correct. I saw lots of people online worry about the arbitrary branch cut [2:52] of the logarithm, but I don't think this matters. Yes, you could choose it differently and that it give you a [2:58] different definition of…”
EML acts as NAND gate for continuous math formulas — Verified (95/100)
At 4:30
Nailed the analogy—Odrzywołek's paper delivers exactly that. Hate when math nerds are right 😤✅
Why this score: The claim matches the 2026 paper by Andrzej Odrzywołek, 'Generating All Elementary Functions with a Single Binary Operator,' where eml(x, y) = e^x - ln(y) generates all calculator functions via nesting, like NAND in logic. Spot-on description of the core idea and its tree structure for formulas.
Original quote: “The claim is that eml is kind of a NAND gate for scientific calculators and there is a possible practical angle. If every ordinary formula can be rewritten as a tree made from one repeated building block”
Simplicity subjective; nesting one op not always easiest — Opinion (50/100)
At 4:38
Drops the mic on simplicity wars—physics foundations shook 💀🔥
Why this score: Spotlights philosophy of simplicity in math/physics, where Occam's razor lacks metrics. Nesting eml 20x vs. 10 ops? Debatable—echoes real debates on theory elegance without resolution.
Original quote: “You could rightfully argue that maybe using 10 or so different operations is easier than nesting just one operation 20 times in itself. In the end, it depends on just how you quantify simplicity.”
EML simplifies symbolic regression for machines — Solid (80/100)
At 5:01
SR is exploding with AI—uniform blocks like EML would streamline searches. Logical af ✅
Why this score: Symbolic regression fits data with interpretable equations; a single operator reduces search space dramatically, aiding genetic programming and LLMs in SR. Paper implies this utility; field advancements (SRBench, UFO) confirm machine-focused benefits over human use.
Original quote: “The author suggests this could be useful for symbolic regression, which means trying to guess the equation behind a set of data. So this may be less about helping humans do maths and more about giving machines a simpler language”
Paper cute but unsurprising; odd no one did it sooner — Opinion (50/100)
At 5:40
Zero on BS meter but props for calling out the 'duh but novel' vibe 💀😂
Why this score: Pure opinion on novelty—valid take since sets are math primitives, but continuous functions via one op is fresh per 2026 paper. Speaker balances cute dismissal with genuine surprise at lack of priors.
Original quote: “I give this paper a zero out of 10 on the [ __ ] meter. It's a cute paper. I think that the point isn't super surprising to anyone, but it is surprising that no one has done it before.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →