Channel
@insightmathematics
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
131subscribers
+0 since we began measuring on 8 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002392169625 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @insightmathematics |
| Description | рассказываю о математике и не только для связи: @insightmath |
| Created | Between 1 September 2024 and 31 March 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 9 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 16 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 2 |
| On Telegram | t.me/insightmathematics |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 9 Aug 2026, 00:46 | 131 | no change |
| 8 Aug 2026, 11:49 | 131 | first reading |
19 posts held, back to 9 May 2025 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 31 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 19 (9 May 2025 – 31 July 2026) |
| Views total | 64 |
| Reactions total | 9 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 9 Aug 2026, 00:46 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 9 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. Below Telegram’s rounding threshold, so these counts are exact.
167 reactions across 19 posts, in 5 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 77.2% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 129 | 77.2% | |
| 🎉 | 21 | 12.6% | |
| 🤯 | 12 | 7.19% | |
| 👾 | 3 | 1.80% | |
| 🤔 | 2 | 1.20% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 19 of the 19 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 167reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 19 most recent posts we hold, published 9 May 2025 to 31 July 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @insightmathematics. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 19 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 9 May 2025 to 31 July 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
ничего не выкладывала на ютуб миллион лет, но эпизод 3 вышел. наконец. этот выпуск был каким-то проклятым: несколько раз переписывала структуру, убирала одних героев, добавляла других, потом сломался звук, потом просто не было времени. в какой-то момент казалось, что он вообще не выйдет. но вот он. про то, как алгебра и геометрия тысячу лет жили в разных мирах и как наконец нашли общий язык. аль-Хорезми, Омар Хайям…
🎉7👾2
В XVII веке принц Руперт Рейнский поспорил: через куб можно пропустить куб такого же размера. Все думали, что невозможно. Оказалось можно, если просверлить тоннель под правильным углом. С тех пор возможность протащить через многогранник его точную копию назвали свойством Руперта, и начали проверять другие фигуры. Выяснилось что им обладают все 5 правильных многогранников: куб, тетраэдр, октаэдр, додекаэдр, икосаэдр,…
🎉6❤3
Ответ на вчерашнюю задачу у первого 7²⁄₁₇ монеты, у второго 9¹⁴⁄₁₇. Да, дроби. Теперь про автора. Все знают Фибоначчи из последовательности: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 ... Но «Liber abaci» это 15 глав. Задача про кроликов, из которой получилась последовательность только одна из многих, не главная, просто прилипла. Вся книга была про другое, про десятичную арифметику. В XIII веке Европа считала римскими цифрами и чтобы…
❤5
сегодня вам старая математическая задачка на подумать Двое спорят о деньгах. XIII век, Италия. — Дай мне 7 монет, и я буду в 5 раз богаче тебя. — Хорошо. Но тогда дай мне 5 монет, и я буду в 7 раз богаче тебя. Сколько у каждого? Эту задачу придумал Леонардо Пизанский, которого мы знаем как Фибоначчи. Тот самый, из последовательности 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8... Он объездил Египет, Грецию, Сирию и изучал математику везде …
❤4
Photo, posted without a caption
❤2🤯2
Тарталья vs Кардано Сегодня расскажу вам про драматичный версус батл между Тартальей и Кардано (этот тот, что придумал формулы для решения кубических уравнений, на самом деле нет). Для начала немного предыстории. Вообще формулу для кубических уравнений первым нашёл Сципион дель Ферро, примерно в 1510-х. Он её никому не показывал и держал как оружие для математических поединков, которые тогда были реальной практико…
❤7
ИИ написал 912 научных статей. Все провалились. Но не там, где вы могли подумать. Исследователи дали ИИ задание: написать полноценные экономические статьи, с идеей, данными, анализом и выводами. 912 штук. А потом сравнили с работами людей из топовых журналов. Провал был, но интересно в чём именно. Чтобы измерить разрыв, использовали метрику Cohen's d, она показывает насколько сильно отличаются две группы. Формула …
❤11🎉1🤔1🤯1
интересный факт Персидский учёный аль-Хорезми когда-то написал книгу с серьёзным названием: «Китаб аль-джебр ва-ль-мукабала», что в переводе: «Книга восстановления и противопоставления» аль-джебр — восстановление: перенос слагаемого из одной части уравнения в другую с изменением знака. аль-мукабала — противопоставление: упрощение уравнения, приведение подобных членов. И когда его труды добрались до Европы, а слова…
❤11
https://youtu.be/Idmv84VW9t0?si=17Y5kPltKT4x7n1O сделала новый видос
❤7
вероятность 0 ≠ невозможно Когда говорят вероятность ноль, обычно думают: "значит, событие не может произойти". Но это не так и все довольно просто. В дискретных историях (вроде броска кубика или лотереи) вероятность 0 действительно означает невозможность. Например, вероятность выбросить 7 на шестиграннике нулевая, никакой семёрки просто нет в списке возможных исходов. А вот в непрерывных, все иначе. Если выбирать…
❤14
Самый спорный постулат Евклида это пятый, «о параллельных». В школе мы слышим его в короткой версии: «Через точку вне прямой можно провести ровно одну прямую, параллельную данной» Звучит невинно, но именно этот постулат веками ломал головы математикам. Остальные четыре выглядят более прозрачными: через две точки проходит прямая, отрезок можно продолжить, круг построить и т. д. А вот про параллельные вроде и звучит с…
❤6👾1
Весь последний месяц я занималась только одним: готовилась выходить на YouTube. Во-первых, хотелось попробовать себя в другом формате. Во-вторых, я давно хотела рассказать о том, как развивалось математическое мышление. Весь месяц был занят ресерчем, чтением книг, статей, заметок, просмотром документалок, а также попытками собрать всё это в структуру и без перегруза. И вот теперь я начинаю записывать и выкладывать …
❤15🎉1
Showing the 12 most recent of 19 posts we hold for @insightmathematics. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.
Citation-graph rank — 1,373,269 of 1,549,376entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Named by 1 registered channel — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 9 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“математический инсайт” (@insightmathematics), 131 subscribers as measured 9 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/insightmathematics.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.