Two, then four, then eight, and then sixteen.
It's very nice.
Before I go on with this particular pattern, there's a fun story about it.
A little known fact.
Do you guys know the song Hallelujah, the one popular from Trent?
Yeah, okay.
We all know the song.
Lots of different artists have played it.
The original artist was Leonard Cohen.
He was the one who wrote the lyrics.
Few people know, he actually went through many,
many different iterations of what the song would be.
And ultimately it ended up as this biblical devastation of love.
But one of the earlier versions was about this particular pattern in math.
It's true.
100% true.
Leonard Cohen was a low-key math buff.
And I thought it might be fun, just because I don't want the original
version to get lost in the annals of history, to share with you guys
what this would have sounded like, if history had turned out that way,
if he didn't make it about love and religion and all of those great things.
So welcome to the stage yet again, to accompany on keynote Matt Parker.
Wonderful.
And I know I know Leonard Cohen, but just imagine if you're watching
Shrek and when they get to that typical moment when you don't think
love is going to hold, you've actually heard the proper original.
Well I heard there was a sequence of chords Splits the circle to one, two,
then four And points seem to cut in powers of two Yeah,
it was run like this With fourth and fifth But something's up We go out at six It's
awesome 31 I had a piece for you I'll make it for you I'll make it for you I'll make
it for you I'll make it for you I'll make it for you Yeah When your faith is strong
you still need proof What's your faith?
Death can lead to a dew Each integral up on the left is pi over two Yeah I
think that's true For the next, which is terrible like a drum We've shown
that it's off by a hair It's a subtle slip but it's true I had a piece for
you I had a piece for you I'll make it for you I'll make it for you I'll
make it for you Now take a prime and write it in Facebook It's just like
you had before This prime gives a new prime With this rule, yeah Or does it though?