Why do we consider n as having a property that it can never have? The first criteria should be to check all numbers up to n-1.

Fantastic explanation ❤️

Ik this might be a stupid question....But if we also assume √4 is rational....we can also prove that √4 is also irrational.....Idk if there's some hidden rules that i am missing...pls solve this 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

dont know if anyone will reply, but if there was no voltage source then V(t) would be replaced with 0?

Hi, where did you get that tshirt?

Great explanation, thank you.

That was amazing explanation really thank you

Hi can u tell me what resources study before the solve this putnam problam how can i solved this type problam putnam plz suggest me

Well I understood but I needed more than You 4 minutes. That's what replay is for.

This is art

ACT student here. had a question that needed this equaiton for a question. Explanation really made it clear how this works. Thanks

Interesting that the product expansion is even in x while 1/(1-x) is not.

Legend

thankyou my lord ♥

Great explanation!

Thank you for the delicate demonstration

Thanks! Extremely clear and concise explanation.

What is the music that is playing at the end of the video? It's interesting.

Please don't use your finger to wipe the board, oil from the skin ruins the pen and the board

Great explanation! Thank you

I got the eigenvector associated to the eigenvalue -2 equal to (1, -4/3), is this okay?

I don't follow this last equality that : a x (b sin(theta) ) = a x b , where a and b are vectors. This is sloppy. Because theta is between 0 and 180 degrees, sin(theta) is between 0 and 1. This means that the vector "b sin(theta) " is in the exact same direction as b but is shorter. This means that the area of the parallelogram formed with sides "a" and "b sin(theta)" is smaller than the area of a parallelogram with sides "a" and "b".

Hey, thanks for the thorough explanations, it actually makes sense. One question, how do you get the exact error of taylor series in the integral form? could you perhaps send me the video link or any paper for the derivation of the equation? thanks!

고정된 상수값을 원으로 생각하니 이해가바로되네요!

Differentiating Integration of Integral

Feels like he's a right handed and trying to be left handed.

English is not my first language but bro was amazing

I think we can add negative terms like e^-x, e^(-x/2), e^(-x/3), … to the sum to make it converge on the positive side as far as it does on the negative side, even with a finite number of terms

u just made this make sence thank you thank you

Sir please explain the base system and conversion btw different bases

Amazing. Masha allah. Can you explain how your thought process work or how you approach problems. So we can follow it and get some good GPA

I spent four years doing a physics degree starting in 2003. KZbin existed since 2005 and this sort of content was certainly not available until after I finished. I always found the unengaging lectures difficult to follow, printed lecture notes missing insight and text books impossibly heavy. I wonder how much more I could have got out of that education had content like this been around to enhance conceptual understanding .

I could not understand injection mod n

9:23 r subi is not a divisor of a

any more advanced algebra videos you can do ... please do! These videos are great

thankU love from INDIA

LEFT HANDED AND BEING A MATHEMATICIAN IS TRULY A GIFT

Thank you for posting this video! I've been searching for the geometric Interpretation of determinants for 3x3 matrices and this video nails it.

Thank you!!!

Love your videos. All are well done and clearly presented. Wish you are well; as I saw that the last video was a year ago.

Thank you

Great work ! Ty so mutch . Love from a future chemeng

It's easy to show the square root of any prime number is irrational. Any number can be expressed as the product of prime numbers raised to some non-zero power. If, for some number n, all those exponents are even integers then n is a perfect prime. If one or more of the exponents is odd, n is not a perfect square. Then, when you take the square root of n you're left with at least one square root of a prime number in the product; i.e. an irrational number. So the square root of n is irrational.

Nice:) Thank you so much!!

Nonsense. Now redo the math but don't make the light have a 1:1 ratio on your graph. I like to draw light velocity practically along the x axis, because nothing can go faster. This gives me the full plotting area to enter real data. Not only half of it. The weird way you choose to have light at 45 degrees is the only reason you math works the way it does. You have (minkowski has) created a "special case". Only if light is drawn at 45 can you get the result you want to see. The whole theory collapses if you change that one thing.

Are you writing this on your wall?

I will need to look this over a few times and digest it a bit, but it sure seems to be helpful for understanding the function and purpose of normal subgroups, which I darn sure have been stuck on for a long time. Thanks for the upload.

Amazing

Not visible