After reading the text book and watching several videos on TH-cam I couldn`t understant the Archimedean property proof.. until I came across this video, now I understand it pretty well. Thank you Sir!
But the very first line of his proof is wrong. It should be like this: Let us assume that there exist x, y in R (x>0) such that nx ≤ y for all n in N. Hope you get my point.
Ajj Mera exam me .ye question Aya tha..and mene exam dene k bad aa kar dekh rahi hnu Actually mujhe ye thoda suna suna sa laga tha lekin ye hoga .....ye mujhe pata nehi tha 😅
Starting Math lectures series on Real Analysis, GroupTheory, Calculus and other subjects very soon. For individual help (free tution) contact at my whatsapp# +923005453039
Going to start an easy Lectures series on Real Analysis Grouo theory, Calculus and Lagebra very soon. For individual help (free) contact at my whatsapp# +923005453039
Is the denial of conclusion is just change the Inequality? I think it should deny the existence of such 'n' your conclusion looks not enough to guarantee the existence of such 'n'
Starting Real Analysis & Group Theory Lectures series in Hindindi/Urdu soon. Need your suggestions, feedback and Support. For individual study help Plz contact at my whatsapp# +923005453039
After reading the text book and watching several videos on TH-cam I couldn`t understant the Archimedean property proof.. until I came across this video, now I understand it pretty well. Thank you Sir!
What book did you use
But the very first line of his proof is wrong. It should be like this: Let us assume that there exist x, y in R (x>0) such that nx ≤ y for all n in N. Hope you get my point.
He has already mentioned dat for all n€N
Indian supremacy 🔥🔥
@@joshuamutambala2310 I and 94
Thanks for bringing me out of scary dream of real analysis bcz I started hating it.
Satrting an easy Lecture series on Real Analysis, Calculus and Group Theory very soon. For individual help (free) at my whatsapp # +923005453039
See this.. It's very helpful th-cam.com/video/2COqmsqloKs/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/2COqmsqloKs/w-d-xo.html
Were you also studying from a book?? 😣
@@needsomedetoxforgate yep:(
Thanks ...you are life saviour ❤
If x=2 , y= 4 and n= 1
Then nx < y
Can you explain it
then it means n is not 1. it must be the number that satisfies nx>y
Here n is variable
Haha...theorem is evident when y less than equal to 0
it says there will exist a no. n if y=4 and x=2 then there will exist a no. n off course greater then 2 which satisfy the equation nx > y
Ajj Mera exam me .ye question Aya tha..and mene exam dene k bad aa kar dekh rahi hnu
Actually mujhe ye thoda suna suna sa laga tha lekin ye hoga .....ye mujhe pata nehi tha 😅
Thnxxx for a proper explanation 👍 🙏
Sir how could you say that mx>alpha-x
U r the bst techer ever
Plzz make more vd.
Thank u...it helped me a lot
Nice explanation man...
Thank you sir 🙏.
Nice explanation 🤗👌👌👌
Please make more content sir
Nice explanation sir
Please upload density theorem
Jaldi exam ave 6e
Sir can we consider that n as integer( since I found in one Archimedean property statement)
I dont think so.. n here stands for any natural no. ..
Thank you so much wholeheartedly😊😊✌️👍
Tqq sir this is a very good video
Starting Math lectures series on Real Analysis, GroupTheory, Calculus and other subjects very soon. For individual help (free tution) contact at my whatsapp#
+923005453039
Very easily explained....confusion at some instances......please upload more real analysis videos
Going to start an easy Lectures series on Real Analysis Grouo theory, Calculus and Lagebra very soon.
For individual help (free) contact at my whatsapp# +923005453039
The first line of the proof is wrong. It should be "Assume nx is less than or equal to y for all n in N"
No it's correct bcoz mention such that
Sir excellent work, upload more
Thank you very much!
Bhai padna kyu chhode diya pura real analysis padhoo according du new syllabus bsc mathematics sem1 plzzz
Very nice expl
The first line of the proof is wrong.
That is a contradiction
Is the denial of conclusion is just change the Inequality?
I think it should deny the existence of such 'n'
your conclusion looks not enough to guarantee the existence of such 'n'
the author defined S wrongly and the upper bound of S is also wrong
Super sir
Thanks but couldn't find it very helpful
Ammudam
y is also greater than zero
y can be any real number ...
x has to be greater than zero
Sachin Karanwal okay sir
👍👍👍
Sir plz upload all topic of real analysis in hindi
Starting Real Analysis Lectures series in Hindi/Urdu very soon.
For indiviadual study Help (free)
Contact at my whatsapp# Number
+923005453039
Starting Real Analysis Lectures series in Hindi/Urdu very soon.
For indiviadual study Help (free)
Contact at my whatsapp# Number
+923005453039
Your wrong.Atlast not for all n belongs to N
Theorem send kro
Completeness property of real number
Starting Real Analysis Lectures series in Hindi/Urdu very soon.
For individual free study help contact at my whatsapp # +923005453039
Shi h ya glat
Helo
Sir thora Hindi me boleyena
#GauriShankarGupta
Sir hindi se samjhaye na please
Starting Real Analysis & Group Theory Lectures series in Hindindi/Urdu soon. Need your suggestions, feedback and Support.
For individual study help
Plz contact at my whatsapp# +923005453039
mujhe itna gussaaaa aaya jb ye add bech me aaya mai ise kbhi suscribe nhi karunga
thizz veedio izzz bullzzzziiiiiihhhhhh
ja k tu pda na fir
auuukaat haii teriii??????
😂😂😂😂😂😂😃😃
phley padhana sikle . kya bolra kuch smj niara