Det var ganske uprofesjonell video!!!

With mathematics, astronomy and history, I DISCOVERED THAT HALLEY´S COMET IS THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM. On August 23, 2018, in my "Colombian Arithmetic Reconciliation Between History and Astronomy" in excel, I discovered that: 1) Halley's comet is the same Biblical Star of Bethlehem. 2) After the year 1066 A.D., there is an error (8 years extra). The year 1986 was really 1978 A.D., and the year 2018 was really the year 2010 A.D. 3) The German version of Ghost Time, which says that 297 false years were added to history during the period (614 - 911 AD) is not correct because during that time there were historic sightings of Halley's comet (837 A.D.,sighted during the reign of Ludovico Pío or Louis the Pious, and was reported by a chronicler nicknamed "The Astronomer" ), and there is no remainder of 297 years either. Going back in time with periods of 76.03 years, since 1066 when William the Conqueror spotted the comet, I found that the Halley's comet had its perihelion in year 1 of the Christian era and in the year 837 a.D., in the time of King Louis I. We are currently in the year 2024, however really this is the year 2016 a. D., because there is an error (eight-years) in the allocations of historical dates in the first 8 years, it may be because dates were always calculated based on periods of 75 or 76 years, but the exact period of Halley 's comet is 76.03 years, accumulating 8 years, or perhaps because at some point after the year 1066 AD, historians noticed that there is an error (8 years) in the assignment of historical events during the first 8 years of the Christian era and possibly those historians (clerics) thought that the error could be corrected by adding 8 years, but that was not the correct solution, It is necessary to relocate the assignment of historical events during the first 8 years. Whatever it may have been, after the year 1066 A.D., there are 8 extra years until today 2024 A.D (2016 years since the birth of Jesus The Messiah). Going back in time with exact periods of 76.03 years, from the last perihelion of Halley's Comet in 1986 to the oldest record (China 2290 BC), it is observed that the perihelion of the year 1074 AD corresponds to the historical sighting recorded with date 1066 AD (when Halley's Comet was observed in Normandy and England by William the Conqueror) giving rise to a current accumulated difference of eight (8) years, between the date of historical record (1066) and the date that is supposed to correspond to the exact perihelion (1074). Therefore, if those eight (8) years of difference are subtracted from the date of the last perihelion of the year 1986, we obtain that the year 1986 should be the year 1978. Taking the exact year 1978 as a starting point and Going back in time (subtracting or subtracting) with exact periods of 76.03 years, it is observed that Halley's Comet had its correct perihelion in the year 1065 or 1066 (when it was sighted by William the Conqueror), it also coincides with the historical record from the year 837 when it was sighted by King Louis I (the Pious), reported by a chronicler called "the Astronomer", but also and most importantly, it can be observed that Halley's Comet had its perihelion in the first year, or year one (1) of the Christian Era or time after Christ a.D. Best regards, Kevin Artemo Casanova Santini González, from Cali, Colombia

With mathematics, astronomy and history, I DISCOVERED THAT HALLEY´S COMET IS THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM. On August 23, 2018, in my "Colombian Arithmetic Reconciliation Between History and Astronomy" in excel, I discovered that: 1) Halley's comet is the same Biblical Star of Bethlehem. 2) After the year 1066 A.D., there is an error (8 years extra). The year 1986 was really 1978 A.D., and the year 2018 was really the year 2010 A.D. 3) The German version of Ghost Time, which says that 297 false years were added to history during the period (614 - 911 AD) is not correct because during that time there were historic sightings of Halley's comet (837 A.D.,sighted during the reign of Ludovico Pío or Louis the Pious, and was reported by a chronicler nicknamed "The Astronomer" ), and there is no remainder of 297 years either. Going back in time with periods of 76.03 years, since 1066 when William the Conqueror spotted the comet, I found that the Halley's comet had its perihelion in year 1 of the Christian era and in the year 837 a.D., in the time of King Louis I. We are currently in the year 2024, however really this is the year 2016 a. D., because there is an error (eight-years) in the allocations of historical dates in the first 8 years, it may be because dates were always calculated based on periods of 75 or 76 years, but the exact period of Halley 's comet is 76.03 years, accumulating 8 years, or perhaps because at some point after the year 1066 AD, historians noticed that there is an error (8 years) in the assignment of historical events during the first 8 years of the Christian era and possibly those historians (clerics) thought that the error could be corrected by adding 8 years, but that was not the correct solution, It is necessary to relocate the assignment of historical events during the first 8 years. Whatever it may have been, after the year 1066 A.D., there are 8 extra years until today 2024 A.D (2016 years since the birth of Jesus The Messiah). Going back in time with exact periods of 76.03 years, from the last perihelion of Halley's Comet in 1986 to the oldest record (China 2290 BC), it is observed that the perihelion of the year 1074 AD corresponds to the historical sighting recorded with date 1066 AD (when Halley's Comet was observed in Normandy and England by William the Conqueror) giving rise to a current accumulated difference of eight (8) years, between the date of historical record (1066) and the date that is supposed to correspond to the exact perihelion (1074). Therefore, if those eight (8) years of difference are subtracted from the date of the last perihelion of the year 1986, we obtain that the year 1986 should be the year 1978. Taking the exact year 1978 as a starting point and Going back in time (subtracting or subtracting) with exact periods of 76.03 years, it is observed that Halley's Comet had its correct perihelion in the year 1065 or 1066 (when it was sighted by William the Conqueror), it also coincides with the historical record from the year 837 when it was sighted by King Louis I (the Pious), reported by a chronicler called "the Astronomer", but also and most importantly, it can be observed that Halley's Comet had its perihelion in the first year, or year one (1) of the Christian Era or time after Christ a.D. Best regards, Kevin Artemo Casanova Santini González, from Cali, Colombia

With mathematics, astronomy and history, I DISCOVERED THAT HALLEY´S COMET IS THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM. On August 23, 2018, in my "Colombian Arithmetic Reconciliation Between History and Astronomy" in excel, I discovered that: 1) Halley's comet is the same Biblical Star of Bethlehem. 2) After the year 1066 A.D., there is an error (8 years extra). The year 1986 was really 1978 A.D., and the year 2018 was really the year 2010 A.D. 3) The German version of Ghost Time, which says that 297 false years were added to history during the period (614 - 911 AD) is not correct because during that time there were historic sightings of Halley's comet (837 A.D.,sighted during the reign of Ludovico Pío or Louis the Pious, and was reported by a chronicler nicknamed "The Astronomer" ), and there is no remainder of 297 years either. Going back in time with periods of 76.03 years, since 1066 when William the Conqueror spotted the comet, I found that the Halley's comet had its perihelion in year 1 of the Christian era and in the year 837 a.D., in the time of King Louis I. We are currently in the year 2024, however really this is the year 2016 a. D., because there is an error (eight-years) in the allocations of historical dates in the first 8 years, it may be because dates were always calculated based on periods of 75 or 76 years, but the exact period of Halley 's comet is 76.03 years, accumulating 8 years, or perhaps because at some point after the year 1066 AD, historians noticed that there is an error (8 years) in the assignment of historical events during the first 8 years of the Christian era and possibly those historians (clerics) thought that the error could be corrected by adding 8 years, but that was not the correct solution, It is necessary to relocate the assignment of historical events during the first 8 years. Whatever it may have been, after the year 1066 A.D., there are 8 extra years until today 2024 A.D (2016 years since the birth of Jesus The Messiah). Going back in time with exact periods of 76.03 years, from the last perihelion of Halley's Comet in 1986 to the oldest record (China 2290 BC), it is observed that the perihelion of the year 1074 AD corresponds to the historical sighting recorded with date 1066 AD (when Halley's Comet was observed in Normandy and England by William the Conqueror) giving rise to a current accumulated difference of eight (8) years, between the date of historical record (1066) and the date that is supposed to correspond to the exact perihelion (1074). Therefore, if those eight (8) years of difference are subtracted from the date of the last perihelion of the year 1986, we obtain that the year 1986 should be the year 1978. Taking the exact year 1978 as a starting point and Going back in time (subtracting or subtracting) with exact periods of 76.03 years, it is observed that Halley's Comet had its correct perihelion in the year 1065 or 1066 (when it was sighted by William the Conqueror), it also coincides with the historical record from the year 837 when it was sighted by King Louis I (the Pious), reported by a chronicler called "the Astronomer", but also and most importantly, it can be observed that Halley's Comet had its perihelion in the first year, or year one (1) of the Christian Era or time after Christ a.D. Best regards, Kevin Artemo Casanova Santini González, from Cali, Colombia

Helt Joker Nord dette greiene her 😅

Hun var digg!

Er det vanskelig?

Endelig en mattelærer som er pedagogisk

Fyyyy flate så tørt og kjedelig disse reglene er å lære. Også hadde det vært kjekt å gått mye saktere frem og forklart, fordi egentlig så er det ikke egentlig så vanskelig. Men matte-lærere er alltid så upedagogiske.

Kandidaten var noget uklar her: En grafe KAN starte som positiv, passere x-aksen og bli positiv igjen. Teoremet er m.a.o ikke godt nok formulert. Presentasjonen står derfor til stryk om jeg skulle vært sensor for ham.

Her var det mye sausing, rør og sammenblanding av begreper i kombinasjon med figurer som ikke gir mening. Den verste brøleren var å kalle tall-mengde for tall-system. Nest-verste var å si at nevneren for rasjonale tall bare kunne være naturlige tall (dvs positive heltall) og totalt se bort fra at det kan være negative rasjonale tall, etterfulgt av en figur som faktisk viste at det også kunne være negative rasjonale tall.. I tillegg var kandidaten uklar i.f.t den øvre skranken ved å si at denne eksklusivt måtte være STØRRE enn alle tallene i mengden - når den i praksis kan være større eller lik. Om jeg skulle bedømt kandidaten ville det dessverre måtte blitt stryk.

Hun snur seg alltid for raskt. Flesteparten av oss hører på det hun sier men stirrer på rumpa hennes - og når hun tar oss på fersk gjerning som følge av at hun snur hodet for fort - så føler vi oss avslørt og flaue.

Why nobody told me before it can solve with addition method 🙄 Takk lærer❤️

really inspired

kjempegreier

👍

Dette er den beste videoen jeg har sett i hele mitt liv.

Me and Eskil will be here in 3 years😁

Gleder meg som ett egg!

jesus, jeg leter etter likning systemer... bra video men damn fkng bodybuilder

Du er en gud!

Takk for god video!

Jeg liker Toms agressive holdning til det hele - hvorfor i faen skal vi ha komplekse tall???

Ville anbefalt kortere videoer..grunnen til at de fleste sliter med matte er fordi det blir gørr kjedelig. Mange er på utsikt etter å lære noe raskt på Max 5 min

takker meget

Første ligning står der MINUS 18 og minus 3 på annen side av lighetstegnet.+ 18 på begge sider gir 15 og ikke 21 ! Enig?

veldig god forklaring av derivasjon :). takk

damnn....

beast

Jeg var heldig nok til å være aktiv i foreningslivet på IFI da Morten var instituttleder der og i starten av dekanperioden hans på matnat. Og den måten han og Narve var med på å legge til rette for at vi kunne ha en morsom studietid var fantastisk. Lykke til videre Morten!

Jag som en Svensk tittar på det här. Tack alla norskar!

Batty boy

takk :)

du e så flink, lette å forstår.

🧪🧪

bra

Hvorfor ser du ned på arket hele tiden?

ok pappa

Jasså ja da er det dere som står bak corona viruset også da noe programmering og mattematikk? Hømm

Please I'm from Nigeria I want to study in Norway but I can't login using the studentweb please some should help me.

Tusen takk!

Det hjalp! Takk :)

12:07 Feil. En øvre skranke er ikke nødvendigvis et tall som er større enn alle tallene i mengden. En øvre skranke er derimot et tall som er større enn *eller lik* alle tallene i mengden. Hvis en øvre skranke "ikke kunne være lik" hadde det ikke gått an å hatt en minste øvre skranke. Det kan tenkes på slik: Hvis den øvre skranken "måtte være større", så kunne vi ikke ha hatt en øvre skranke lik det største tallet i mengden. I et desperat forsøk på å finne en minste øvre skranke kunne vi da ha valgt et tall som var litt større enn det største tallet i mengden. Men da kunne man kommet med en ny øvre skranke som ligger mellom det største tallet i mengden og den foreslåtte minste øvre skranken. Ergo, kan ikke den foreslåtte minste øvre skranken, uansett hvor nærme den er det største tallet i mengden, være den minste mulige øvre skranken. Hvis vi derimot sier at en øvre skranke er et tall som er større enn *eller lik* alle tallene i mengden, er den minste øvre skranken det største tallet i mengden. Da kan vi ikke finne noen mindre øvre skranke, for den hadde da også vært mindre enn det største tallet i mengden, og da hadde den jo ikke vært en øvre skranke. Og ja, jeg har enormt stor IQ.

Tom Lindstrøm shiiiiid smart as

En suverent god gjennomgang! Takker igjen!

En utmerket gjennomgang! Kan ikke gjøres bedre!

Særdeles godt forklart! Takker hjertelig!

Nyttig! Takk!

scam

:-)