The Mathematics of Love | Hannah Fry | TED Talks

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


Finding the right mate is no cakewalk — but is it even mathematically likely? In a charming talk, mathematician Hannah Fry shows patterns in how we look for love, and gives her top three tips (verified by math!) for finding that special someone.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design — plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at

Follow TED news on Twitter:
Like TED on Facebook:

Subscribe to our channel:


Tosh Outdoors says:

I think Hannah falls into the Portia de Rossi category

Healthy Body Mind Soul says:

Entertaining yet lacking substance
Read The 5 Love Languages by Gary Chapman, Look up "John Gottman 5 to 1 Positive to Negative Ratio" or The Mathematics of Marriage for more detail

Tobi Areje says:

This woman was hilarious! Why was no one laughing at her jokes? Must have been a non British crowd.
BTW, she is lovely. Anyone know if she's married yet?

Visionero says:

Salvaje comentario en español

Rhine Horn says:

SJP is a minger

Phú Trần Quang says:

Video rất hay nhưng dốt tiếng anh nên không biết gì hết.

Simi Stop says:

Her voice is so attractive , I bet siri goal is to sound as attractive as her.

Oliver Palacios says:

I learned nothing

Mr. Atlantis says:

How about just giving us the mathematical probability of Peter getting laid, this Friday?

Nate B. says:

I think I've just found love! Let's get together and talk numbers some time!

Simon Johnston says:

Curse you Hannah Fry with your engaging presentational style and marvellous voice!

eddebrock says:

What about us who are just ugly?

Peťo Sopko says:

This was very interesting. That accent + looks made me almost fall in love (no mathematics here).

Sky L says:

How bout picking the right person.. Too many people settle for less and sell themselves short for reasons, many of which arent the right ones.. Seen too many divorces.. Lots of people dont want to be alone, but more problems arise by being with the wrong person. Never force things to work, and never cling onto someone because you're scared to be alone or depend on them for something. Plus if you feel like you're the only person in the yourself and get out. You will attract what you give out, the right person will come into your life.. Never give up hope!

kingStormy Sky says:

As Seth McFarlane rightly noted once, through the lips of Peter Griffin, SJP looks like a foot. lol

Valentin Barcenas says:

found it a bit stupid, but interesting

Super Cuber says:

Wouldn't the second method give you a 37 percent chance of dying alone?

AnnoyingAsshole says:

I'd tongue punch this redhead's fartbox 

Ivan Shekerev says:

I love this! 🙂 I am thinking … what are the odds that she has a daughter looking for a mate :D

angela taylor says:

incredibly LIFE CHANGING…OMG……thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sxchi says:

yeeee. mathematically, I'm most likely with the love of my life <3

TheGreatSpaces says:

Seems to have misread Gottman a little, or missed important points that contradict some of the things she's saying…

Jack Johnson says:

Sounds like the girl from goodwill hunting 

Marc Pichel says:

Interesting, so epicureanism beats stoicism when it comes to love. I wonder: Does this mean both partners should complain equally about issues, or only those that feel their emotions and thoughts should be heard and discussed on a daily basis? What ratio limits this? At which point is it just an egocentric circle-jerk and are we totally forgetting there is a world out there with much bigger emotional tribulations than our own?

Or perhaps the negativity threshold should be equal for both, not just low. Or perhaps the studied group only consists of people that are simply used to always get what they want (their opinion heard). Regardless of negativity threshold or bias. Should've studied social psychology or something :D

dseer13 says:

love red heads

Brian Fletcher says:

If one looks as numbers as human characteristic as opposed to quantification symbols, numerology hits the target. 1,active(masculine) 2, passive (feminine) 3 creative, 4, practical 5, investigative, 6, idealistic, 7, reflective, 8, cre8tive/authoritative and 9 humanitarian.

I challenge you to look at the concept this way, and you will see why Pythagoras decided that it was prudent to form a secret society.

Knowledge is power…and it why it is "forbidden" for Catholics to investigate.
I was told this by a Jesuit friend high up in the Vatican, when I first discovered this remarkable language a few decades ago. I soon could see why they took that stance.

Write a comment