วีดีโอ

I feel personally attacked 😂

Animations were strong, but you were going waaaay too fast through some parts and quite slow through others. Overall quite a mid video I would say.

I wonder why do they chose f(x) like this?

trivial

No way that's rigorous

Isnt this just ordinary partial differential equations where everything is open

Did. Did he just prove taylor?

Same as 16/64 cancelling out the six gives 1/4

fun fact-- feynman never wrote a book! they were written by a ghost writer who was also a physicist that compiled random shit he said in lectures.

I did not watched the video, yet.. But n(!)equalsN AND=arrow.right..

I have not watched the video, yet.. But power of..Xequals0..

To be fair, one can make this argument _almost_ completely formal (the integral operator applied to 0 is just plain bonkers). Call X the space of smooth real functions f on the interval [-1/2,1/2], with the infinity norm over. One can verify that this is a Banach space, and thus so is E the set of bounded linear operators from X to itself. One can define the J in E with norm 1/2 as the integral: (Jf)(x) = int_0^x f(t)dt. With these definitions, and calling 1 the constant function equal to 1, J exp = exp - 1. As a result, (I-J)exp = 1 (this equality is functional). Since the norm of J is strictly less than 1, the series sum_{k=0} J^k is absolutely convergent, call K its sum. Moreover, K(I-J) = I, as truncating the series shows. Then it must be that exp = K1 by composing the equality (I-J)exp = 1 by K. But then K1 = 1+x+x^2/2!+...

Dude low key squared an integral sign

why can we cancel the dx? (even though e^x≠e^x+c)

Sadly the right associativity makes it annoying to extend tetration to the reals (a^^b)^^(a^^c) != a^^(b^c)

This gives new meaning to "operator calculus."

Cool little intro to operator theory video

yes officer, this video right here.

Stop right here, criminal! It's math police, and you are going to the math jail. You are going to use square lined books until the end of your days.

Him saying “ As someone who’s really good at calculus “ is my exit out of the video…but really folks what is defined as “good” when it comes to calculus?….is B+ as a grade in Calculus one considered “good” ?….am i overreacting by running the hell out of every calculus discussion?…. Looking up at physicists I guess I’m a failure looking down at people who have never passed it I think I’m good….that’s basically what a chemist is someone with moderate understanding of physics and mathematics…. NOT the highest just enough to create the best lab products ever…. Or really maybe that is just my justification of my issues…

This is like a blasphemous taylor expansion, I cant even be mad about it.

0:30 remember to use \left( and ight) so the brackets grow to contain that integral.

0:05 you can tell that this is a physicist because they didn't mention that it's up to a constant multiple.

What did I just watch?

Oh, wow. You can just go up to a math student and tell them this. It's like bullying, but legal.

Oh my god what have I just seen

tbh I saw worse stuff in physics classes over the years

Easy one 🌚

Like yea, but damn....

03:43 is the adjacency matrix wrong? since v4 and v5 are connected the correspond number should be 1?

What in the math-voodoo-jutsu just happened?

Do maclauran series and finish it asap

Y=0 also is its own derivative

Great video, thank you so much. It would be great if you could make more videos on this topic, maybe on the Perron-Frobenius theorem and mixing times / Cheeger's inequality. It is a very visual topic. Thanks so much!

Ayo what the hell did I just witness 👁👄👁