I've had really hard time understanding parametrization for a long time. But watching this video cleared it up, and now I finally understand how to do it. Thank you so much!
Dude, this is so darn simple and easy to understand. My instructor never actually took the time to talk any of this out, and your video helps so much. Thank you!
I have watched dozens of videos from various people and I really like how you broke it down. I actually feel like I understand parametrization or whatever its called lol
This channel is growing on me. You tackle some complicated topics that (at least my) homework and "teachers" (had to get a jab in) refuse to explain and the book doesn't say a peep about it.
OMG THANK YOU. I had a quiz as practice for my upcoming midterm, and I got every single one of the parametrizations wrong because I just didn't know how to do it, and now with your video, I found out it was quite simple.
I mean, it makes sense on paper, but the minute you graph it in the calculator (parametric), the graphs do come out looking different. So that part I don't get.
The examples are in explicit form, that's why x = Ct works. Simple implicit forms such as x^2 + y^2 - 1 = 0 can be tackled trigonometrically. What will you do when your curve is in implicit form and with arbitrary polynomials.
That is a great question. You are correct that the examples above are explicit functions. Parametrizing implicit curves is not typically done in Calc II/III (the basis of these videos) beyond simple curves such as the unit circle you mentioned. Parametrizing general implicit curves is considerably more difficult (and in some cases is impossible). For more in depth reading, google a paper by Christoph Hoffman at Purdue called "Conversion Methods Between Parametric and Implicit Curves and Surfaces".
Thanks Alvin for making this point. And thanks Firefly Lectures for showing how to parametrize explicit curves and explaining the differences between parametrizing the same curve using various methods.
Can you suggest me a theoretical textbook about this subject matter? I've read "Leithold" and "James Stewart": they don't explain how to do the parameterization, they just use it. By the way: good video.
Wait, I thought one of the major pros to parameterizing was that you can define curves such as circles since Y was dependent on T rather than X. Wouldn't we lose that benefit by making X=T?
Hey guys, I need help. The function x=z^2 +1 is given. Now I want to parametrize it. In the solution they use the "simple parametrization of a curve" and compute x(t)= (t^2 +1/0/t). I can't comprehend this. Thanks in advance for your help!!
I've had really hard time understanding parametrization for a long time. But watching this video cleared it up, and now I finally understand how to do it. Thank you so much!
🤓
Dude, this is so darn simple and easy to understand. My instructor never actually took the time to talk any of this out, and your video helps so much. Thank you!
🤓
I have watched dozens of videos from various people and I really like how you broke it down. I actually feel like I understand parametrization or whatever its called lol
🤓
Definition of great teacher: Is the one who makes complicated stuff easy. And you are. Thanks!
Should have showed parametrization of more complicated functions.
Wow. This seemed so complicated in class, but you made it easy-peasy. Thank you so much!
🤓
Holy shit bro this was the fucking easiest damn thing to do thank you so fucking much bro
This channel is growing on me. You tackle some complicated topics that (at least my) homework and "teachers" (had to get a jab in) refuse to explain and the book doesn't say a peep about it.
🤙🏻
This is a very intuitive video, thank you
The most easiest explanation so far. Thank you so much.
@:33 "there are lots of rights answers" Perfect. This fact is overlooked and understated too often.
I was literally struggling with this for few months. Thanks a lot for cleaning this up🙂
OMG THANK YOU. I had a quiz as practice for my upcoming midterm, and I got every single one of the parametrizations wrong because I just didn't know how to do it, and now with your video, I found out it was quite simple.
Thank you. You're a legend. You solved my problem without even making it half way through the vid
thanks dude you rock! im bout to patrametrihosdfnos my ass off
Thank you very much - exactly what I was looking for - clear and concise!
Amazing Video! You really helped me. Thank you!
Blas, you are very welcome!
Perfect👏 the more straightforward and the more elegant
This practically saved my life.
Muchas gracias... excelente explicacion
Luis zMacias Valade De nada!
thank you so much
Thank you for the simple explanation.
that explanation is just great!!! thx a lot
Djimy Slot - No problem :)
thank you!
thank you right to the point
Thank you sir
Very helpful video
Amazing and very well explained :))
Thank you Sir and lots of love from India :)
Thank you very much!
So simple but so helpful!
great video!
Ezra Wyschogrod - Thanks! :)
Thanks a lot
thanks a lot man! really helped :) keep up the good work
Chris Tan - Will do! :)
Thanks a lot Sir! Great explanation!
What you did is just substitute
i found smtg similar than this in my calculus textbook but i didnt understand how and why they chose x to be "t" ; now i do thank you
Thanks for the video!
This was really useful
i was curious on how it changes direction. helps out. thanks
Thank you! Finally understood parametric equations
Had no idea what was going on in class until I saw this
right on point, thanks
very useful dude, thx a lot
felipecampos94 - No problem, glad to help!
Great, clear explanation, sir - thank you!
I mean, it makes sense on paper, but the minute you graph it in the calculator (parametric), the graphs do come out looking different. So that part I don't get.
The examples are in explicit form, that's why x = Ct works. Simple implicit forms such as x^2 + y^2 - 1 = 0 can be tackled trigonometrically. What will you do when your curve is in implicit form and with arbitrary polynomials.
That is a great question. You are correct that the examples above are explicit functions. Parametrizing implicit curves is not typically done in Calc II/III (the basis of these videos) beyond simple curves such as the unit circle you mentioned. Parametrizing general implicit curves is considerably more difficult (and in some cases is impossible). For more in depth reading, google a paper by Christoph Hoffman at Purdue called "Conversion Methods Between Parametric and Implicit Curves and Surfaces".
Cheers for the suggestion, I've been trying to find out more about parametrization in general. (Y)
Thanks Alvin for making this point. And thanks Firefly Lectures for showing how to parametrize explicit curves and explaining the differences between parametrizing the same curve using various methods.
thanks
Naruto Uzumaki - You're welcome! :)
Thank you. at 4:17 3^2×2 = 18.
thank you sir your videos helped me a lot...... but i have a question if i want to improve my skills in math from where should i start?
Good stuff, Thaanks
yep, u did for the simple functions, but VERY GOOD WORK!
Worth watching!
really struggled with this thank you !
awesome dude....subscribed :)
Asymptote - Sweet! :)
very helpful
Done deal...was facing problems on parameterization thanks
Great lecture!!! Thanks sir for solving my problem.😎😎
Thank you for this video!
How are you using your handwriting? S-pen or something? Or what's the app called?
Thank you in advance!
how do you do your video like this? with yourself in the corner?
Hi Kathryyn McIntosh , Google "green screen" or "chroma key".
U made it simple❤❤❤
thx
You're the best
Sir what kind of utility i get it from??
Can the x equation when you are parametrizing be anything?
Can you suggest me a theoretical textbook about this subject matter? I've read "Leithold" and "James Stewart": they don't explain how to do the parameterization, they just use it. By the way: good video.
Missing a t on 12 at 4.28, it should be 2t^2+12t+19. Except for that, excellent session!
Wait, I thought one of the major pros to parameterizing was that you can define curves such as circles since Y was dependent on T rather than X. Wouldn't we lose that benefit by making X=T?
Can you parameterise y=f(x,y)? where it is not possible to get rearrange to y=f(x), although you can get f(y)=f(x)?
Would there be a way in which we can't paremeterize an equation?
tnx!
Find a parametrization of the portion of parabola
y = ax² + c
from
(−1,a + c)
to
(1, a + c) .
Hey mister, can you solve this for me ? Please
What about parameterizing a curve where it isn't a function? maybe xy^2=1?
A more visual approach would be better.
@Mis Sempoi -- (-t)^2 = (-t)(-t) = t^2 (since -1*-1=1). Hope that helps.
Hey guys,
I need help.
The function x=z^2 +1 is given. Now I want to parametrize it. In the solution they use the "simple parametrization of a curve" and compute x(t)= (t^2 +1/0/t).
I can't comprehend this.
Thanks in advance for your help!!
Yes, this is HOW you do it, but please explain WHY I should do it. Why would y = 2t^2 + 1 be simpler than y = 2x^2 + 1, it's basically the same shit
y= 2(-t)square+1
=2tsqaure+1?
Where’s the negative gone? sorry I don’t get it T_T
Does every curve have parametric equations?
Please answer and explained with example
i know more
most useless video ever
thx