ขนาดวิดีโอ: 1280 X 720853 X 480640 X 360
แสดงแผงควบคุมโปรแกรมเล่น
เล่นอัตโนมัติ
เล่นใหม่
YOU SERIOUSLY HAVE SIMPLIFIED MY LIFE WITH THIS VIDEO IN PARTICULAR :) thank you.
I'd prefer to pay you for teaching than my so-called professor(s). You break down complicated things into digestible information so well!
great attention to detail , thank you
Very well explained!
Nice demonstration.
thank you so much ritvik sir. could you please maker a collection of realanalysis? please 😊
Awesome
You say that morera's theorem statement is for a triangle but it is for any jordan curve? That aside you're a great teacher and good proof.
It holds for every simple, closed, piecewise-C^1 curve in an open set. With these stronger hypotheses the converse need not be true, but the triangle formulation is actually equivalent to holomorphy in a region.
Could you elaborate the reasoning behind F(z) being well-defined?
I agree with your opinion. I think omega need to be convex in this argument, for the line segment parpametrization to be defined.
YOU SERIOUSLY HAVE SIMPLIFIED MY LIFE WITH THIS VIDEO IN PARTICULAR :) thank you.
I'd prefer to pay you for teaching than my so-called professor(s). You break down complicated things into digestible information so well!
great attention to detail , thank you
Very well explained!
Nice demonstration.
thank you so much ritvik sir. could you please maker a collection of realanalysis? please 😊
Awesome
You say that morera's theorem statement is for a triangle but it is for any jordan curve? That aside you're a great teacher and good proof.
It holds for every simple, closed, piecewise-C^1 curve in an open set. With these stronger hypotheses the converse need not be true, but the triangle formulation is actually equivalent to holomorphy in a region.
Could you elaborate the reasoning behind F(z) being well-defined?
I agree with your opinion. I think omega need to be convex in this argument, for the line segment parpametrization to be defined.