A bunch of neat little details that my professors skip over because they don't deem it relevant to the curriculum... So neat, it makes the video that much more interesting Learning maths outside of the academic context makes it easier to like
@heysisteronion3 жыл бұрын
Thank you...You make Math and English easy to understand! You save my life.
@tmann986 Жыл бұрын
I was trying to do a self study of proofs from the book of proof and I’m glad you have this playlist! Its already helping me so much.
@soundsjustright83 жыл бұрын
me trying to fit in an entire semester's worth of work in one night
@sonicmaths82857 ай бұрын
Bro 💀
@atik.30113 жыл бұрын
Great you made a playlist for discrete mathematics!
@dannycollins569810 ай бұрын
You are amazing and make my life better!
@febojarlock94693 жыл бұрын
Hi, is it convenient to review this playlist before to do the Udemy course in Abstract Algebra: Group Theory?
@SantiagoHernandez-zn2ei3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this video
@TheMathSorcerer3 жыл бұрын
My pleasure!
@martinhawrylkiewicz2025 Жыл бұрын
Great vid Math Sorcerer! Im teaching myself set theiry from a book by Chatles Pinter and got a bit stuck with a proof....wondering if you or sbyone could help? Im trying to show that the Russell class {x: x forsnt belong to x} is a proper class and therefore not a set. My intuition tells me to do this by contradiction by assuming this class is a set, and so its a member of some other class...?
@nirajiitian76983 жыл бұрын
Hi sir its sufficient for olympiads level quetion
@algorithmo1343 жыл бұрын
we need for cardinality proofs!!!
@marienbad23 жыл бұрын
If U = {all people) then Imagine x e U | x living life in peace. Sorry, couldn't resist!
@chessematics3 жыл бұрын
∅
@crehenge23864 жыл бұрын
12 ads are alot for any video...
@TheMathSorcerer4 жыл бұрын
Haha wow that many
@jonathanstudentkit4 жыл бұрын
actually some things are wrong, e.g. it is wrong to define i as sqrt(-1), since in the complex field, there are exactly n solutions to z^n = c, in this case n=2, c = -1, hence the definition is unclear. Also methodically the approach is bad, since i*i = -1 is more of an implication of the definition of *: C x C -> C if we set i = (0,1) \in R^2.