25 Math explainers you may enjoy | SoME3 results
Based on 3Blue1Brown's video on YouTube. If you like this content, support the original creators by watching, liking and subscribing to their content.
SoME3 treats “success” as expanding the supply of high-quality math explainers online, not just awarding prizes.
Briefing
Summer of Math Exposition (SoME3) spotlights a central truth about math explainers: “good” isn’t one universal standard. The strongest entries tend to be tailored to a specific audience, where the fit between topic, depth, and presentation style makes the explanation feel uniquely satisfying—whether that means shader-programming detail, classroom-ready worked solutions, or interactive tools.
The judging challenge this year came from that mismatch. Ranking explainers across different formats and audiences—general viewers versus niche math or science communities—turns “winner” selection into an apples-to-oranges problem. The organizer frames success less as collecting trophies and more as expanding the amount of high-quality mathematical explanation available online. That lens drives a tour through 25 standout submissions, mixing videos and non-video entries, each praised for how well it serves its intended readers.
Several picks emphasize depth and completeness. “The Math of Saving the Enola Gay” uses the World War II aircraft mission as a hook, but the payoff is a physics optimization problem: choosing the best route after dropping the weapon to avoid disastrous aftereffects. The entry earns respect for stepping through the full details rather than outsourcing heavy reasoning to “an exercise for the viewer,” making it a plausible classroom case study.
Other selections highlight practical or technical problem-solving. “Making a Pitch Shifter” connects audio time-stretching without pitch change to the underlying math and signal-processing ideas, including multiple approaches and code along the way. “Pixel Art Anti-Aliasing” tackles how low-resolution 2D pixel art can be rendered in a higher-resolution 3D environment; it’s especially compelling for computer graphics and shader programmers, where the mathematical motivation aligns with the craft.
A recurring theme is that niche explanations can be more valuable than broadly “accessible” ones. “Cayley Graphs and Pretty Things” is aimed at group theory students and builds toward semi-direct products with a mental model that feels easier to hold than typical textbook treatments. “The longest increasing subsequence” is praised for its memorable, seminar-style clarity and for making a natural probability question—what to expect from a random permutation—feel both surprising and beautiful.
Non-video work also earns strong endorsements. “Matrix Arcade” is valued for turning linear algebra ideas into an interactive playground, making it a useful link for teachers. “Functions are Vectors” is singled out as a thorough bridge from thinking of functions as standalone objects to treating them as vectors in a more structural way.
Beyond traditional math topics, the list includes physics and applied math hooks: minimal surfaces and the calculus of variations in “Mathematical magic mirror ball” (string art) and “Math of bubbles,” plus a calculus-2-friendly resource on how computers calculate logarithms. Several entries use clever premises—shadows and shape reconstruction, fixed point theorems with a calming visual style, floating-point number representation through “discovery fiction,” and a spherical mirror method for reconstructing a 360-degree view.
The winners ultimately reflect this audience-first philosophy: “Mathematics of string art,” “Minimal surfaces and the calculus of variations,” “Rethinking the real line,” “Pixel art anti-aliasing,” and in the non-video category, “How computers use numbers.” The broader takeaway is that the internet’s best math explanations don’t try to be everything to everyone; they become excellent by being exactly right for someone.
Cornell Notes
SoME3’s standout math explainers are judged less by a single universal standard of “goodness” and more by how precisely they match a target audience. The organizer argues that general-audience math explainers rarely exist in a truly “best” form; instead, the internet shines when explanations are specialized—deep, complete, and tailored to the right readers. Several praised entries deliver full worked reasoning (not hand-waving), while others win through interactive tools, strong mental models, or distinctive visual storytelling. The final winners reflect this audience-fit approach, ranging from shader-focused anti-aliasing to calculus-of-variations minimal surfaces and a non-video deep dive into floating-point number representation.
Why does ranking math explainers become difficult in a contest like SoME3?
What distinguishes “The Math of Saving the Enola Gay” from typical YouTube-style explanations?
How does “Pixel Art Anti-Aliasing” illustrate the value of audience-specific excellence?
What role do mental models and structure play in entries like “Cayley Graphs and Pretty Things”?
Why are interactive or “playground” formats treated as a meaningful contribution?
What is the contest’s broader definition of success beyond prizes?
Review Questions
- Which criterion makes “general-audience” math explainers hard to rank, and how does the organizer resolve that tension?
- Pick one praised entry and explain what specific feature (depth, completeness, mental model, interactivity, or visual style) makes it effective for its target audience.
- How do the final winners reflect the contest’s audience-first philosophy?
Key Points
- 1
SoME3 treats “success” as expanding the supply of high-quality math explainers online, not just awarding prizes.
- 2
Ranking explainers is inherently hard because “good” depends on audience fit; general-audience excellence is not a single standard.
- 3
Entries that fully work through details—rather than outsourcing steps—are repeatedly valued as more authentic to doing math.
- 4
Niche topics can outperform broad ones when the explanation is tailored to the right background and interests (e.g., shader programming, group theory).
- 5
Interactive formats like a linear-algebra playground can add value beyond static explanation by letting learners explore ideas directly.
- 6
Strong explainers often use memorable hooks (missions, audio effects, shadows, mirrors) to pull viewers into rigorous math or physics reasoning.
- 7
The SoME3 winners span both video and non-video categories, including minimal surfaces, anti-aliasing, rethinking the real line, and how computers represent numbers.