Відео

you are underated

What?

🤝🙌👍👏

Is there any video that explains these concepts and why row reduction works geometrically ?

5:00 pls link the video someone

what a wonderful video, it is very helpful for me thanks a lot

i thought its anti derivative wuld be -1/2x * cos(x^2)

Can we solve it without trig trick? خيلي زيابست

I remember discovering it myself when I was trying to sum reciprocals, and noticed the graph looked a lot like ln x, so I let my calculator run all night working out the difference that was about 0.577.

Can you mention the book you found this trick from? Btw really amazing video!!

Why isnt this taught to all students in calc I? I never knew this!

Niceeeeee

I love you sir; God bless you forever

Proof accepted. :)

Nice :-) Wondered if the log gave the infinitesimal generator of all rotations and an small experiment in Maple confirms. m is your matrix logarithm, then with(LinearAlgebra):MatrixExponential(phi*m) gives a generic rotation. For phi=1 your starting point half pi rotation (90º) is recovered and for phi=4 would be 2pi radians rotation. Satisfying!

Dr. Peyam, I miss you!! How are you doing? :) (If you even see this)

but since we used ln here, doesn't this exclude y values that are <=0 ?

THANKS,., THAT IS THE SOLUTION I WANT TO FIND...

Thank u smart

beyond fantastic

Why is all the math I struggle with so simple when I find the teacher that can explain in my way? I will try to get up to Calculus by the end of 11th grade as i have never gotten to enter Middle school or High school due to payment issues and for my family having trouble with work thank you sir 🙏

Thank you very much for this. I was struggling with a similar problem for hours. I'm still trying to grasp it so I have a question: Would I be correct if I said that the matrix can be recovered unambiguously because: - The column vectors of A corresponding the pivot columns of A' form the basis of a column space of A - Thus, the other column vectors can be written as the linear combination of the basis vectors in EXACTLY one way.

Amazing

Perfect & clear explanation (way better than my textbook/professor)! Your video was very helpful in studying for my final tomorrow. Thank you!

I have a question. How we can indetify functoons that doesnt have a antiderivative?

What about not a ball but a sphere? Is that open?

Thanks sir

But i use this method all the time

0:22 doc dropped fire beat tho

I finally found a video that makes it more clear....Thanks man

Great Video as always. Isn't there a problem defining the metric on X like this, because X is not a vector space, hence not a Banach space. Or maybe I'am misunderstanding something.

Great Video as always. Isn't there a problem defining the metric on X like this, because X is not a vector space, hence not a Banach space. Or maybe I'am misunderstanding something.

Not gonna lie our teacher taught this first in middle school before quadratic formula, Indian maths teacher rocks

Exams coming this week, am glad i saw this...

From J. W. Patterson: are all transcendental numbers dimensionless?

Xtanx= ytany..thereafter uv - vdu...biparts...

At 5:40, instead of mentioning the definition of the Riemann integral, you can instead draw the graph y=1 and calculate the area manually as the area is just a rectangle. In my opinion this is more rigourous

Hi Dr Peyam, Id like to ask whether this can be proven with the mean value theorem and just be as valid? Mean value theorem + Squeeze theorem. Thanks!

Great explanation sir

Hi ！Dr Peyam, I love your videos and the way you explain things as intuitively as possible. I'd like to know whether you are missing at 9:52, since we know that delta has to be > 0 and epsilon also has to > 0, shouldn't we write delta > 0 somewhere? I mean, we've already established that epsilon > 0, that's good, but we haven't established that delta > 0. Is it missing or am I actually overthinking xD And sir, we know that we have to make delta = to min{1 , epsilon/7}. But why do we use epsilon / 7 at the end even though we don't know which one is smaller? Many thanks!

Why is e^(i ♾️^2) zero?

How can we prove that a function with it's derivative=0 is a constant?

sir your analysis is great

this is the first time i learned some thing from a gay and to be honest he save us tomorrow in the algebra exam

L'hopital rule only works with 0/0 form

The general solution to the first PDE is actually f(y) + c, because it could also include a constant that doesn't depend on either x or y.

he's so enthusiastic, this eases assimilation

ouroboro

2:11:42