When a mathematician gets bored ep.2

  Рет қаралды 41,285

Maths 505

Maths 505

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 161
@cdkw2
@cdkw2 2 ай бұрын
The into reminds me of old bprp, "Lets do some math for fun!"
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
That's exactly what I had in mind. I loved his math for fun videos.
@Fire_Axus
@Fire_Axus 2 ай бұрын
@@maths_505 YFWI
@CM63_France
@CM63_France 2 ай бұрын
Hi, "terribly sorry about that" : 1:11 , 2:10 , 5:31 , 7:10 , 7:58 , 8:12 , 9:57 , 10:10 , 10:20 , "ok, cool" : 1:24 , 10:40 .
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
Glad you're back bro
@CM63_France
@CM63_France 2 ай бұрын
@@maths_505 Glad to be home, the railway company offered me the hotel at Bordeaux because of the delay.
@bilkishchowdhury8318
@bilkishchowdhury8318 2 ай бұрын
With all due respect, do you do this with a program/AI
@CM63_France
@CM63_France 2 ай бұрын
@@bilkishchowdhury8318 Not at all, just by hand, and for fun.
@TazwaarAhmed09
@TazwaarAhmed09 2 ай бұрын
10:20 doesnt exist
@ReaganStoleMyDick
@ReaganStoleMyDick 2 ай бұрын
Absolutely abysmal integral signs, the mark of a well-experienced mathematician
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
Everything about this comment including the username is legendary
@Skibidigokyllyourself
@Skibidigokyllyourself 25 күн бұрын
absolutely fearmongering username
@r4_in_space
@r4_in_space 2 ай бұрын
When you are so incredibly bored that you get the idea to put a derivative operation into the quadratic formula:
@bjornfeuerbacher5514
@bjornfeuerbacher5514 2 ай бұрын
As far as I know, the first to consider stuff like that was Oliver Heaviside, more than 100 years ago.
@ShaunakDesaiPiano
@ShaunakDesaiPiano 2 ай бұрын
The only problem with the second, and perhaps the first approach too, is determining whether the series “converges” in some sense of operators, i.e. that the infinite sum exists.
@ВасилийДрагунов-н8т
@ВасилийДрагунов-н8т Ай бұрын
Well it depends on the specific functions and operators. If those are given, one can test for uniform convergence. For those that are given in the video it works fine. However, there might be some problems with less nice functions.
@Noam_.Menashe
@Noam_.Menashe 2 ай бұрын
If I remember correctly, on the space of continous functions with the supremum norm, there's a to show that some definite integral with "x" as an upper bound is a contraction, and then you can show that the sum of infinite integrals is convergent, and by some weird version of Weiestrass fixed point, you can prove this has a single solution, and build up the Taylor series for it using just 1 as the first function and then iterating the sequence. There's a MSE question with something like this. 4871850.
@DarkDiamond007
@DarkDiamond007 Ай бұрын
I love how your differential operator D just becomes a triangle over time, thus a big delta, a Laplace operator, which technically is D^2
@Skibidigokyllyourself
@Skibidigokyllyourself 25 күн бұрын
greatest comments and replies coming from a math chanel i ever seen, earned a sub
@edene5493
@edene5493 2 ай бұрын
i immediately saw the recursion for df=2f, i’ve spent way too long with recursion problems
@gitgudnoobs7917
@gitgudnoobs7917 2 ай бұрын
balls
@Nottherealbegula4
@Nottherealbegula4 2 ай бұрын
Only on this channel can a reply like this get likes + a heart
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
@@Nottherealbegula4 hell yeah 🔥
@ariuwu1234
@ariuwu1234 2 ай бұрын
cool video, you don’t need to be terribly sorry for not writing prime though haha
@manstuckinabox3679
@manstuckinabox3679 2 ай бұрын
Hey man, it’s been a while that I came on this channel and dropped a comment, but just wanted to remind you that this channel is frankly my favorite youtube channel here; I don’t think there’s a channel which motivated me more on my math journey than this channel; so keep up the insane maths! I think we can also achieve this result using laplace, it might generate a similar result.
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
I'm thinking about Laplace but I don't see how it would work
@qdphi
@qdphi 2 ай бұрын
Can’t we differentiate both sides and arrive at f’=2f yielding f(x)= ke^(2x) ? I mean it is sort of like the first approach but without all of the extra stuff.
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
Yeah it's just about as quick as the 2nd approach
@manjugangwar7245
@manjugangwar7245 2 ай бұрын
I also had the same idea but I want to add something new so with similar reasoning we can evaluate g(x)=[integral mess in terms of f] g'=f+g g'-g=f now time to IF r(x)=e^(-x) so now g=e^x(integral of f(x) e^-x dx)
@Calcprof
@Calcprof 2 ай бұрын
I love formal operational methods. Heaviside lives! This somehow reminds me of some infinite cascade matrix problems, which have two solutions depending on boundary values at infinity. (But in this case the infinite equations is martially replaces by a 2nd order equation, not a 1st order.)
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
Interesting
@tylershepard4269
@tylershepard4269 2 ай бұрын
This almost looks like a Volterra series expansion. Those get really fun! Especially in the frequency domain.
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
Fascinating
@tylershepard4269
@tylershepard4269 2 ай бұрын
@@maths_505 It is a really cool concept. It extends the idea of Taylor Series to include time delays. The nth order term in the series expansion, instead of being raised to the power of n as in c_n(x-x_o)**n, is instead the nth order convolution and c_n is a function that is an n-th order impulse response. It’s a beautiful idea that allows for nonlinear expansions of systems beyond what Taylor series can offer. Here is the Wikipedia article about it that explains it much better than I could in a comment: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volterra_series
@joshuaiosevich3727
@joshuaiosevich3727 2 ай бұрын
The answer is kind of immediate, e^(2x) first integral is e^(2x)/2 then e^2x/4 and it all adds up to 1.
@DragonOfThePineForest
@DragonOfThePineForest Ай бұрын
I saw the thumbnail, then then the title and went "ha! that looks like fun" I was thinking of doing something like this for a while (doing a video of me exploring math) but I've been worried about doing it. this actually might make me try again.
@chinmay1958
@chinmay1958 2 ай бұрын
I approached it like this: y = int y + int int y +.... differentiating both sides, y' = y + int y + int int y +.... or y' - y = int y + int int y +... subtracting the above equation with the original equation, we get y' - y = y so y' = 2y, solving this simple differential equation we get y = Cexp(2x) where c is some positive constant but where did i go wrong?
@Anmol_Sinha
@Anmol_Sinha 2 ай бұрын
Its correct
@arseniix
@arseniix 2 ай бұрын
I used the linearity to figure out that f = int f + int (int f + int int f + ...) f = 2 int f f' = 2f f = Cexp(2x)
@RanEncounter
@RanEncounter 2 ай бұрын
Why does the constant C have to be positive? Isn't the range for the constant just real numbers?
@chinmay1958
@chinmay1958 2 ай бұрын
@@RanEncounter Thats because C here is actually e^c where c is the actual constant of integration. You basically get something like |y| = exp(2x+c) so i guess from here you can see that the constant term here e^c which we can just denote as another constant C. exponential functions are always positive for all inputs. e^c is always positive no matter what c is. Dont confuse C with c.
@RanEncounter
@RanEncounter 2 ай бұрын
@@chinmay1958 But it doesn't have to be e^c. Try it out. C can be any real number and yet it is a valid solution to the problem. You made a logical error somewhere.
@pooydragon5398
@pooydragon5398 2 ай бұрын
My first instinct was just Ce^x but I was too lazy to actually sit and solve.
@omfgacceptmyname
@omfgacceptmyname Ай бұрын
thank you. pats you on the back. you are doing great thank you for teaching me about math
@SwarnenduSarkarsk49
@SwarnenduSarkarsk49 10 күн бұрын
The Abel Prize Equation!!!!!!
@orisphera
@orisphera Ай бұрын
My answer is: All f's fit. Here's how: Solution 1: So, let's say we have some f. First, compute the right-hand-side. We need to do this in a way that it converges everywhere near x=0. I think one way to do that is by assuming each integral to be 0 at x=0. Then, changing the innermost constant while retaining the value at x=0 for further integrals should add x to the corresponding power with coefficients proportional to the change in the constant. By using the Taylor series expansion of the difference, you can make them equal Solution 2: First, integrate it in the way that the point at x=0 is -f(0)-f'(0) where f' is the first derivative of f. Then, integrate the result in the way that the point at x=0 is f'(0) - f''(0) where f'' is the second derivative. Then, integrate the new result in the way that the point at x=0 is f''(0) - f'''(0). Continue this ad infinitum, with the first iteration having been the only exception (where the lower-degree derivative is negative in the formula for the value at 0). When you add up all the results, it'll give f
@johnbirkenhauer4061
@johnbirkenhauer4061 Ай бұрын
Mathematicians don't mean the same thing by "fun" that normal humans do!
@somerandomuserfromootooob
@somerandomuserfromootooob Ай бұрын
Definitely, I need ~pArental~ _Mathematician_ advisory!
@wernerheisenberg1624
@wernerheisenberg1624 2 ай бұрын
My approach was totally unrigoristic and "it was presented to me in my dream" type of shi but it went something like this: The solution has to be in a form of Ae^(kx), where A and k are constants (that's the dream part). N-th integral of this function is equal to (1/k^N) * f. We get: f = (1/k + 1/k^2 + 1/k^3 + ... )*f So we are looking for constant "k" such that infinite sum of 1/k^n converges to 1. We get k=2, so f=Ae^(2x).
@xinpingdonohoe3978
@xinpingdonohoe3978 2 ай бұрын
This reminds me of formal variables, the things they use for generating functions, where convergence or divergence of the series is trivial when compared to what it produces, just with a functional operator.
@thevalarauka101
@thevalarauka101 Ай бұрын
maths teachers would absolutely flip out if they saw this... "no it's repeated integration! you can't just plug it into a geometric series formula!"
@maths_505
@maths_505 Ай бұрын
Functional analysis profs would smile
@shacharh5470
@shacharh5470 2 ай бұрын
integrate and add integral(f) to both sides to get: 2 integral(f) = integral(f) + integral(integral(f)) + ... = f much simpler, this results in f = e^(2x) and indeed: e^2x = e^(2x) * sum (1/2 + 1/4 +...) = sum ( integral(e^(2x)) + integral(integral(e^(2x))) +....)
@theonetribble5867
@theonetribble5867 Ай бұрын
The thumbnail imediately reminded me of the operator notation for light transport, introduced in Eric Veach's thesis. He uses the geometric series to derive an approximation for the equation $L = L_e + T L$ where $T L = \int f(x, w_o, w_i), L(x'(x, w_i), -w_i dw_i$.
@konstantinparchevsky2031
@konstantinparchevsky2031 Ай бұрын
Let's integrate the right- and left-hand sides of the original equation (S is the integration sign) :) S f = SS f + SSS f + ... (1) The right hand side of (1) is no more than f - Sf (2) Really, the RHS of (1) IS f without Sf according to the original equation. Then, the whole thing is reduced to f = 2S f f = C exp(2x)
@multienergy3684
@multienergy3684 2 ай бұрын
I found as a solution f(x)=Ae^(2x)+B with A an B as constants of integration. Here's my reassoning: Let's call J the sum of all integrals from the double one onwards, the equaton becomes: f(x)=Sf(x)+J, I also choose to esplicitate NOW the consants of integration, which summed uo give a singular constant: f(x)=Sf(x)+J+C. Now let's ttake the original equation (WITH THE INTEGRATION CONSTANT MADE EXPLICIT): f(x)=Sf(x)+SSf(x)+SSSf(x)+SSSSf(x)+...+C Now if we derive this equation we will get: f'(x)=f(x)+Sf(x)+SSf(x)+SSSf(x)+... Now there is no constant of integration, it was cancelled by the derivation: we can rewrite this equations as: f'(x)=f(x)+Sf(x)+J --> f(x)=f'(x)-Sf(x)-J Now we have: f(x)=Sf(x)+J+C f(x)=f'(x)-Sf(x)-J If we sum this two equations we get: 2f(x)=f'(x)+C Which can be easily solved with separation of variables giving as result: f(x)=Ae^(2x)+B I hope that I was useful!
@achrafsaadali7459
@achrafsaadali7459 2 ай бұрын
the idea of derivating the function however the most correct and the first idea to spring into our mind there is still a subtle parameter that is a bit neglected but if you pay close attention when you integrate f(x) one time you get a new function plus the constant which can be overlooked if we are taking it easy however going on for more we get more than a function with a constant on the side we get a whole polynome aside from integrating the sole function f(x) for i dont know how many times if we considered the constants from each integration to take 0 as value , I hope that you as a reader understand what I am trying to highlight
@tenebrae711
@tenebrae711 2 ай бұрын
Hmm that is really true, but I really don't know how one would approach this
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
The polynomial you're talking about will be of the form (c1+c2+...)e^(2x) so you have a constant times e^(2x)
@achrafsaadali7459
@achrafsaadali7459 2 ай бұрын
I am afraid that the way you are summing up the constants is incorrect since we have parameters are more than once integrated so if we happen to come across a non zero constant for at least one parameter we will have to account for a monome that is if we are taking it easy .........
@achrafsaadali7459
@achrafsaadali7459 2 ай бұрын
@@tenebrae711 Yeah I am beat to the answer either but I think if we were given more infos on the function in way for our solution to be bound to a few criteria
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
@@achrafsaadali7459 I've accounted for that. Give it a try in writing, it should work out.
@atreidesson
@atreidesson 2 ай бұрын
technically 1 is a solution to the first thing because 1 = 0e^2x + 1, while the integral of f is the same thing as the integral of f + any constant, for example 1. It's also valid for any function represented as c0+x¹c1+x²c2+..., though that may converge not everywhere.
@モハメドイブラヒム-k8f
@モハメドイブラヒム-k8f Ай бұрын
Also technically 0x is a solution
@HeavyMetalMouse
@HeavyMetalMouse 2 ай бұрын
It seems that, when you plug the second order partial solutions back into the original equation, the fact that the D = -1 term diverges has to imply that C2 = 0. Essentially, the original equation being an 'infinite series' creates an implied Constraint on the solution that demands the result converge, which, if we run the numbers, is likely to imply that every partial solution other than the [C1]e^(x/2) will have its 'arbitrary constant' constrained to 0 in order to remove the divergent solutions. If we run the numbers for a third degree equation, we get: f - f' - f'' - f''' = f''' (2D^3 + D^2 + D - 1)f = 0 Characteristic Equation factors into (2D - 1)(D2 + D + 1); the second term factors into D = -1/2 +- i*sq(3)/2, which generates a partial solution: (a.cos(x.sq(3)/2) + b.sin(x.sq(3)/2)).e^(-x/2) For compactness, we write y == e^(-x/2); k == sq(3)/2 (note y' = (-1/2)y; k^2 = 3/4) f = (a.cos(kx) + b.sin(kx)).y f' = (-1/2)f + k(-a.sin(kx) + b.cos(kx)).y f'' = (-1/2)f - k(-a.sin(kx) + b.cos(kx)).y f''' = f We reach a cyclic pattern, as expected. As such, the series on the right does not converge, as the series of partial cycles between three separate functions, unless both (a=0) and (b = 0), in which case the series of partial sums is trivially 0. From this we can conjecture that for any integer n > 2, the rearrangement of the equation to: f - f' - f'' - ... - f(n) = f(n) will yield a -1/2 characteristic partial solution producing the familiar f = Ce^(-x/2) solution, and some combination of divergent partial solutions that must be constrained by the requirements of Convergence so that their 'arbitrary' constants are set to 0.
@lih3391
@lih3391 2 ай бұрын
Does this logic apply to perturbation theory?
@deinauge7894
@deinauge7894 2 ай бұрын
seems like all other solutions are exp(k x) with k being all n-th roots of 1, excluding 1 itself
@alexkaralekas4060
@alexkaralekas4060 2 ай бұрын
9:05 my first thought was to integrate both sides then get 2f'=f+f^(n+1)'
@tifn4g190
@tifn4g190 Ай бұрын
Just replace 1-1+1-1 by the geometric formula 1/[1-(-1)] =1/2 and it should work
@theobscure
@theobscure 2 ай бұрын
Does that first integral trick with the geometric series work because in the vector space of real integrable functions, the determinant of the integral operator is less than 1?
@RanEncounter
@RanEncounter 2 ай бұрын
The problem with the geometric series approach is that first you have to prove that int operator is between -1 and 1 to come to the conclusion on the video...
@Arycke
@Arycke Ай бұрын
Tru
@rasmitdevkota5295
@rasmitdevkota5295 26 күн бұрын
This can effectively be generalized to an eigenvalue problem for an operator exponential of some sorts, right?
@namanhnguyen7933
@namanhnguyen7933 2 ай бұрын
call int(f) is the integral of f(x)dx we have f(x) = int(f) + int(int(f)) +..... ---> f'(x) = f(x) + int(f) + inf(int(f)).... = 2f(x) ---> int(f'(x)/f(x) = int(2x) ---> f(x) = Ce^2x
@mananshahuja6901
@mananshahuja6901 2 ай бұрын
Yo can you make a video where you prove from the basic what the gamma function and its uses ive been struggling to wrap my head around it
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
I'll make a post on Instagram soon
@aravindakannank.s.
@aravindakannank.s. 2 ай бұрын
Admin used it a lot ,just check the old videos in this channel.
@NitBeanTheMachine
@NitBeanTheMachine 2 ай бұрын
What do you use to write for your videos? Is this an iPad?
@MrWael1970
@MrWael1970 2 ай бұрын
Thank you.
@zacd3956
@zacd3956 27 күн бұрын
get the pitchforks
@trelosyiaellinika
@trelosyiaellinika 2 ай бұрын
Hmmm... Why did I expect to see Laplace here?
@majora4
@majora4 Ай бұрын
My first thought, before even watching the video, was that the trivial solution is f(x) = 0. I know this works for the derivative version, but I have a tiny doubt about the integral version since Int{0 dx} = C. Are we allowed to just pick arbitrary constants such that they cancel out?
@sashagornostay2188
@sashagornostay2188 27 күн бұрын
Fun how fast 1=1/2+1/4+1/8... (and int(f)=0.5f) jumped out to me
@svencollister2355
@svencollister2355 2 ай бұрын
Couldnt you use the partial sum of a geometirc series to obtain a generell solution for finite N and play around with those, if you want deeper insides about the behavior of the finite N solutions
@bilkishchowdhury8318
@bilkishchowdhury8318 2 ай бұрын
What about adding an arbitary constant/ polynomial of integration in each of the multiple integrals in the sum
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
Yeah that's correct but I think for convergence purposes we need to ignore the constants and just call them zero. Working it out in my head, the polynomial (actually infinite series) converges to e^x for the RHS doesn't converge.
@DragonOfThePineForest
@DragonOfThePineForest Ай бұрын
12:01 so true so true.
@元兒醬
@元兒醬 2 ай бұрын
I have a summation problem, hope you can solve it It's a double summation of 1/(mn)^2 , where m goes from 1 to infinity and n goes from m to infinity, let's do some math for fun
@tfk_001
@tfk_001 Ай бұрын
(Havent fully watched yet) The obvious lazy answer is f=0, true as int(0d[anything])=0 and no matter how many integrations you add, int(f)=f
@Ricardo_S
@Ricardo_S 2 ай бұрын
Ok, what I did was f= ∫f+∫∫f+∫∫∫f+... By properties of integrals= ∫(f+∫f+∫∫f+∫∫∫f+...) but thats f+f ∫(f+f)=∫(2f)=2∫f(x)dx Now f(x)=2∫f(x)dx Derivate both sides f'(x)=2f(x) Lets say f(x)=y y'-2y=0 Its a linear EDO if you resolve that you get y=ce^(2x) I would not like write how do I got the solution of the EDO but if someone want to see me write that on a KZbin comment just ask
@atlas_19
@atlas_19 2 ай бұрын
Wait wait, factoring out the integrand wasn't a meme or abuse of notation???
@ambrisabelle
@ambrisabelle Ай бұрын
It is an extreme abuse of notation, but in this case it yields a correct answer, which is basically the criteria upon which some will allow abuse of notation.
@omfgacceptmyname
@omfgacceptmyname Ай бұрын
@@ambrisabelle it's only a model, after all
@ambrisabelle
@ambrisabelle Ай бұрын
@@omfgacceptmynameI don’t exactly know what you mean
@Anmol_Sinha
@Anmol_Sinha 2 ай бұрын
For the 1st method, the GP formula Only applies when r
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
That's quite alot to explain in a comment so: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neumann_series Some searching on math stack exchange should help too.
@arrshK
@arrshK 2 ай бұрын
Thats pretty cool
@lakshay-musicalscientist2144
@lakshay-musicalscientist2144 2 ай бұрын
How I did it was by taking derivative on both sides , we have df=f + (...) df=f + f( by original definition) And this here clearly gives a differential equation with solution ke^2x, can apply similar approach to the bonus question?
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
Yeah that works too
@aravindakannank.s.
@aravindakannank.s. 2 ай бұрын
Finally, i am back.Also is functional analysis is same as operational calculas ? Because before watching this video i thought this as operational calculas. Fun fact : before using this in modern physics, it was already used in electrical circuits in the olden days.
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
Operational calculus is a part of functional analysis
@sledge7459
@sledge7459 2 ай бұрын
how do you know you can use the geometric series formula when the common ratio is the integration operator? usually the requirement is that it has to be < 1 but that doesn’t really apply here
@05degrees
@05degrees 2 ай бұрын
In normed spaces it’s okay if the norm is < 1 (the same for real or complex numbers). If we have a good notion of the norm for operators on functions then it can work. First we fix a space of functions (for example, analytic functions, or smooth functions, or continuous functions, or Riemann-integrable functions), check if there any good norms coming with it, then use an operator norm definition to find out what’s ∫ norm is, and if it’s okay we can go!
@ethanbartiromo2888
@ethanbartiromo2888 2 ай бұрын
My guess before watching is e^(2x)
@omerdvir1709
@omerdvir1709 Ай бұрын
I was thinking e^x and then got a little annoyed when i remmbered we add all of them and then it xame to me e^2x. You get the same function but its coefficents are 1/2+1/4.... infinite sum which tends to one therefore e^2x is a solution
@Zarunias
@Zarunias 2 ай бұрын
Aren't you supposed to add a constant when taking an integral, so int(f)=whatever+c, int(int(f))=whatever+dx+e and so on. So in the end when doing the integrals you can add any (maybe infinite) polynomial to the result. As any function can be expressed as an (maybe infinite) polynomial, shouldn't every function be a solution to the equation?
@Zarunias
@Zarunias 2 ай бұрын
So for example we can have f(x)=x. Now we can have int(f)=x²/2, and then we can have int(int(f))=x³/6+x (this is also a valid integral of the function). We continue with int(int(int(f)))=x^4/24-x²/2, the next integral would be x^5/120-x³/6 and so on. In the end when you sum them up everything cancels except the x.
@ehudkotegaro
@ehudkotegaro 2 ай бұрын
f'=f+int f +...=f+ f=2f f=c* e^2t
@モハメドイブラヒム-k8f
@モハメドイブラヒム-k8f Ай бұрын
0x is a valid solution as well right?
@sachin251998
@sachin251998 2 ай бұрын
How are you just ignoring the constants of integration? Like lets say when integraring the function thrice, we'll get c×e^2x + d×x^2 + e×x.
@firefly7076
@firefly7076 Ай бұрын
The reason why you’re bringing it up is the reason they ignore the addition constants in integration. It doesn’t work in those cases, unless the constants are 0. Try it yourself.
@olbluelips
@olbluelips Ай бұрын
We assume a constant of integration such that f(0)=0. At least, that’s how I think of it. I might be missing something
@lokithe.godofmischief
@lokithe.godofmischief 2 ай бұрын
Earliest i have ever been😅 A req for u kamal can you pls make a video discussing some basic approach to feynman technique? Like how to ket parameters based on ques and stuff
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
Mostly just experience
@aymantimjicht3653
@aymantimjicht3653 2 ай бұрын
Is it the right enswer? ******* f'=f+int(f)+int(int(f)... => f'=2f e^(2x+c)'=2e^(2x+c) => f=e^(2x+c)+cte. ******* I think is a good enswer.
@モハメドイブラヒム-k8f
@モハメドイブラヒム-k8f Ай бұрын
I think that's a great answer too❤
@aymantimjicht3653
@aymantimjicht3653 26 күн бұрын
@@モハメドイブラヒム-k8f Thank you
@IdanShem
@IdanShem Ай бұрын
I believe exp(2x) works :)
@dorol6375
@dorol6375 2 ай бұрын
f(x)=0
@daveydd
@daveydd 2 ай бұрын
Since when did you become a physicist.. if yk yk
@NobodyYouKnow01
@NobodyYouKnow01 Ай бұрын
I can’t tell why, but it looks like he’s doing all the illegal math things my calculus teacher told me not to do.
@vikrantsingh4504
@vikrantsingh4504 2 ай бұрын
Please make a discord server for the community
@akin0m
@akin0m 2 ай бұрын
I must be misunderstanding your reasoning in the finite sum case. When you rewrite the partial sums of f_N with N being of the order of the partial sum, when you factor out a differential operator the result is not D*f_N but rather D*f_{N-1}. So I'm unsure about the validity of the solution thereon, since it seems you are still trying to invoke the ininite sum in the case of the partial. I'll try to show my logic more clearly in the morning.
@BenMartin-f5v
@BenMartin-f5v 2 ай бұрын
F=0 works
@ManuelManzur-Luengo
@ManuelManzur-Luengo Ай бұрын
f(x)=0? doesnt that also work
@maths_505
@maths_505 Ай бұрын
@@ManuelManzur-Luengo when you integrate zero you get a constant of integration. So again....all depends on convergence.
@Jedwint
@Jedwint 2 ай бұрын
why do you draw your integrals like that?
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
Just habit
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
I got this from rizzy on Instagram. Great page, you should definitely check it out.
@GamerDS76
@GamerDS76 2 ай бұрын
Papa flammy made a video on the first one didn't he?
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
@@GamerDS76 I've watched alot of flammy and I don't think he's done anything along the lines of infinite order differential/integral equations
@AdrianCHOY
@AdrianCHOY 2 ай бұрын
Who does this for fun?!
@AdrianCHOY
@AdrianCHOY 2 ай бұрын
Maybe out of boredom
@olbluelips
@olbluelips Ай бұрын
You can actually solve this problem with Pascal’s triangle/the choose function (nCr). That’s how I stumbled across it
@Aarreks
@Aarreks 2 ай бұрын
not watching f=e^(2x) final answer
@merwan.houiralami
@merwan.houiralami Ай бұрын
you didn’t justify the existence of the infinite sum of integrals…
@Kram1032
@Kram1032 2 ай бұрын
There are techniques for finding sums of non-convergent series. Cesàro sums, Zeta-summation, and variations thereof. If you were to allow such more general forms of convergence, is there still a problem there, or do you suddenly get more solutions somehow?
@ШахАхмедов-т5ч
@ШахАхмедов-т5ч 2 ай бұрын
why is your voice so different??
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
I have a slight cough and throat irritation so that could be a cause but I just watched the video and I didn't feel the difference.
@jay_sensz
@jay_sensz 2 ай бұрын
The integral operator doesn't produce a single function like the derivative operator but a whole family of functions with all possible constants of integration. By choosing your constants of integration appropriately, I believe you can add an arbitrary Maclaurin series to the right-hand side of the integral equation, which should give you a huge family of possible solutions.
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
Yes indeed. But there could be problems with this. Let's say we just guess the solution to be Cexp(2x) and try it for the equation. Plugging it in means successive integrations of the functions and of the constants of integration produced. That gives the mclauren series of exp(x) times the sum of all constants c1+c2+... Which even if we assume converges to some c we still get another term c*exp(x) to go with the C*exp(2x). One "fix" here is to just assume the other constants to be zero for convergence i.e. getting rid of the divergent exp(x) term.
@jay_sensz
@jay_sensz 2 ай бұрын
@@maths_505 All the integrals are independent so you can add an arbitrary polynomial in x of degree N-1 to each of them (where N is the amount of integral signs). Without loss of generality, you can just add a single term a_N*x^(N-1) to the N-th integral and construct the power series with each integral contributing a single term. As long as the resulting series converges, I don't think there's a problem with that.
@threepointone415
@threepointone415 2 ай бұрын
When you don't know what to comment so you comment about not knowing what to comment
@cytos
@cytos 27 күн бұрын
f = 0 gg ez
@MohamedachrafKadim-jm5yr
@MohamedachrafKadim-jm5yr 2 ай бұрын
Hi ❤
@maths_505
@maths_505 2 ай бұрын
Hey bro
@Celastrous
@Celastrous 2 ай бұрын
Please stop apologizing. Making mistakes writing isn't distracting, but you saying apologies repeatedly is. Otherwise good video
@Rich-je9fy
@Rich-je9fy 2 ай бұрын
Cool😊
@seijurouhiko
@seijurouhiko 28 күн бұрын
f = ∫f + ∫∫f + ∫∫∫f + ... f = ∫(f + ∫f + ∫∫f + ...) f = ∫(f + f) f = 2 * ∫f
@Retro-jn1lg
@Retro-jn1lg 2 ай бұрын
That's why I'm gay
@vinicus508
@vinicus508 2 ай бұрын
The way he writes bugs the hell out of me. But ig being a real mathematician means being able to read and write unreadable "code"
@myoung1445
@myoung1445 2 ай бұрын
You are the only person who thinks this
@guruone
@guruone 2 ай бұрын
AsymptoticSum[(2 E^-(t x)^2)/Sqrt[\[Pi]] x/z/.t->n/z,{n,1,z},z->Infinity]
@irinaseif9691
@irinaseif9691 2 ай бұрын
I rtpedv this co.mebt wirh my nose
When a mathematician gets bored
10:18
Maths 505
Рет қаралды 46 М.
Noodles Eating Challenge, So Magical! So Much Fun#Funnyfamily #Partygames #Funny
00:33
Мама у нас строгая
00:20
VAVAN
Рет қаралды 9 МЛН
快乐总是短暂的!😂 #搞笑夫妻 #爱美食爱生活 #搞笑达人
00:14
朱大帅and依美姐
Рет қаралды 11 МЛН
Matrix Proof: det(exp A) = exp(Tr A)
17:43
Mu Prime Math
Рет қаралды 34 М.
A strange non-linear differential equation
11:05
Maths 505
Рет қаралды 7 М.
Which number is larger? - Math puzzle
11:17
Math Queen
Рет қаралды 14 М.
A tough integral from the Berkeley Math Tournament
13:50
Maths 505
Рет қаралды 14 М.
Why Runge-Kutta is SO Much Better Than Euler's Method #somepi
13:32
Phanimations
Рет қаралды 157 М.
The unexpected probability result confusing everyone
17:24
Stand-up Maths
Рет қаралды 779 М.
The Subfactorial is Hilarious
24:00
Wrath of Math
Рет қаралды 134 М.
Noodles Eating Challenge, So Magical! So Much Fun#Funnyfamily #Partygames #Funny
00:33