Explicit Laplacian formula

[@giobrach]

You'd also missed the square on the partial x_N term. Otherwise, very straightforward explanation

[@mathalysisworld]

Yes!

[@edik-cz]

a shut up

[@alvarol.martinez5230]

I'm confused by the fact that in order to see if a point is a minimum or a maximum you have to take into account the mixed partial second derivatives and at the same time the Laplacian only uses the "pure" partial second derivatives. Couldn't the Laplacian be affected by this "bias" to say it is a minimum/maximum when it is not or something similar? To put it in intuitive terms, why should be the case that the diagonal flow isn't taken into account to calculate the divergence?

[@sherllymentalism4756]

Álvaro L. Martínez everything diagonal can be split into orthagonal stuff

[@uniqueinventions3201]

thank u vry much

[@NShpolvind]

i can hear the birds chirping in the background :D

[@gameo2001]

Hmm right, yes. Understood, oh right kappa.

[@cmap1503]

actually, you made a mistake. Its supposed to be 42 instead of the thing you wrote at 0:00 til 4:00

[@y0n1n1x]

Last

[@JohanDjurholm96]

First