Understanding Quasiconcave and Quasiconvex Functions

[@pedrocolangelo5844]

This is the first time I get the reasoning behind quasi-concavity and quasi-convexity. Thank you so much! I'm looking forward for another videos of yours!

[@DiiAM00NDx3]

Thank you very much! our prof started right away explaining it in 3 dimensions /using indifference curves and therefore I was a bit lost. Thanks a lot!

[@jewelevans9277]

Your videos are awesome. The way you explain things are so clear. You are seriously saving lives:)

[@Canyon53076]

So I do now have a bit better understanding of the definitions, but am still a bit confused regarding the following With the given definitions, the function you initially use to show quasiconvexity from 10:00 onwards, appears to also fulfil the definition for quasiconcavity, as f(x) (Which would be the Min{f(x), f(y)}) would always be lower than f(xLambda + (1-Lambda)y). Does this mean certain functions can be quasiconcave and quasiconvex at the same time? If we would now take a simple linear function f(x) = x, both the conditions for quasiconcavity and quasiconvexity would be met for any x,y combination and any Lambda [0,1], right?

[@gautamshetty2463]

Yes, quasilinear functions can be both quasiconvex and quasiconcave. Test the stronger definition for just convexity and concavity on the simple linear function you defined i.e. f(x) = x. A linear function is both convex and concave. The same intuition is behind quasilinear functions.

[@eeshapendse592]

A Genuinely amazing video

[@TheBigBoy545]

Well appreciate your videos, really helping me with Advanced Micro!

[@fatenexusgaming9297]

THANK YOU LOVELY EXPLANATION NOW I UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC PART OF IT . SUBSCRIBED AND WILL LOOKING FOR FUTHER VIDEOS

[@vedangpathak]

Teaching Brilliance peaked !!

[@lucaflavius9295]

Very well and very clearly explained. Thank you!

[@derejeabebe2828]

Very good demonstration, thank you

[@markovwallenstein9357]

Are any relative textbooks recommended?

[@iremiposiajayi122]

Rookie question but in defining quasiconcave, why can’t we just use the max instead of the min as our guiding point? This way, we can just flip the definition of quasiconvexity and retain the max instead our definition. I guess my question is: why must we use min in our definition of quasiconcavity?

[@valentinarigamonti9221]

Thank you very much from Italyyyy

[@iremiposiajayi122]

I guess my question is: why don’t we define quasiconcavity as f(lx + (1-l)y) >= max(f(x),f(y))

[@aaronw6485]

great explaination super helpful!

[@yuchaofan]

really helpful, thanks!

[@johnnymonteiro5577]

Good explanation!

[@ksgas2023]

Thank you so much Sir for this marvelous video. I'm sorry Sir if you don't mind is there a way for Subtitle in English Sir not auto generated one?

[@pltcmod4425]

You are the best

[@laurapena1234]

I love you Man

[@hugomuller7332]

Thanks, this was really helpful!

[@rinnetsujikubo2811]

very helpful

[@eliali5716]

Thank you for your video, but you could have explained it in a shorter video. You just repeated again and again same sentences and same concept