My exams are online this term so they're open book and at one point I realised "Hey, I could use a calculator now! That'll make things easier!" Then proceeded to remember that I no longer own a calculator after 4 years of uni maths...
we cant let no privilaged ppls step on us. Doc tor says I have IQ 50 but I know what right and what wrong. woke is worst thing happen to earth since God created earth, no logic comes to them demons
In engineering, we sometimes use proof by comparing shapes: A water tower basically looks like a lollipop which means it can be viewed as a point mass...which means it can be viewed as the classic car on a frictionless surface attached to a spring when performing dynamic analysis. In summary: Water tower=car
You forgot proof by intimidation: This is a set S of real numbers. If S is not well ordered by the end of this sentence I will feed it to the wood chipper. Look S is well ordered
Proof by made up reference: Follows from a paper only available in Aramaic to be found in an ancient temple in the Nepalese mountains during a blood moon.
When he had borne him aloft a third league, The eagle said to him, said to Etana, "Look, my friend, how the land is now!" "The sea has become a gardener's ditch". After they had ascended to the heaven of Anu, At the gate of Sin The eagle and Etana did obeisance together, But the Mother would not give him the proof. They passed through the gates of Anu, Enlil and Ea, The eagle and Etana did obeisance together, But each would not give him the proof. He saw a gate with windows, it had no seal, And went inside. A remarkable young woman was seated therein, She was imposing and beautiful of feature. A throne was set out, the ground was trodden down, Under the throne lions were crouching. For she was Shamash, and the eagle and Etana did obeisance together. Etana beseeched Shamash once again, "Shamash, why do the Annunaki refuse me?" The goddess cried out, "King of Kish, that power is not meant for you!" Etana was cast out from the gate. No god in heaven would help Kish. On Eagle's wings, he ascended above heaven. Beyond the sky, the Black Moon. The eagle and Etana did obeisance together, before the throne carved of ichor. The King beyond time whispered to Etana, "I know what you seek, and I will give it to you." "But l must be given a gift as well." "You desire it not for yourself, but for your people." "They will bear me a gift in your stead." "Kingship will reign in Kish, and order in Man." "But for an age you will give unto me your nature." "The beasts shall fall silent, and the Annunaki fade." "Time's call will be heard, and the deathless shall die." "To rise you will fall, and my howl shall resound." "In time, the order you have purchased will begin to fade, "As the soul you have sacrificed will return." "You will know the age is done, when you hear the Black Moon's howl." And Etana fell back to the earth, as Eagle could no longer hear him. Proof in hand, Etana descended unto Kish. Kish did not cry as in Etana's vision, But Kish did cry.
Proof by referencing page 345 of grothendiecks EGA2 that hasnt even been translated to English from French. Proof by referencing notes given to you by Grothendieck in 1990s that you lost somewhere in Marseille.
Proof using Chinese Reminder Theorem (There'd always be one chinese mathematician who already proved the assertion) *yes, i know it's remainder; that's where the pun resides
"I truly have a most marvelous proof for the above proposition, but alas this margin is too small to contain it. Thus, i leave it as an excercise to the reader." Top 10 sentences before mathematicians lose their minds over trying to figure out your supposdely simple but marvelous proof.
@Darth Vader Sorry, I wrongly assumed that I'm talking to someone with formal training in math or economics. So let me start over and explain things from the beginning. If you start with a false proposition, you can prove anything. Literally anything. Betrand Russel was once challenged by a student to demonstrate this by proving that he's the Pope from the false assumption that 1=0. The proof went like this: "By adding 1 to both sides of the equation, we get 2=1. The set containing just me and the Pope has 2 members. But 2=1, so it has only 1 member, therefore I am the Pope." When you try to apply a theorem in a case where its assumptions are violated, you're once again starting with a false proposition and the result you get will most likely be nonsense. Calculus 101 exams always have some question that looks like a simple application for the L'Hôpital's rule but really isn't because the assumptions are violated. And everybody who tries to use the rule despite being taught for 5 months straight to always check assumptions before applying a theorem will get the wrong result. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule Now, the core problem with both "assuming the necessary assumptions" and "ceteris paribus" is that you're not properly spelling out what *exactly* you're assuming. (I don't really care that the scope of "ceteris paribus" is a bit more narrow than the scope of the other one.) Having such vague assumptions creates several pitfalls: 1) You may accidentaly switch between two different (contradictory) assumptions in your proof while believing that they're identical. Especially if the proof is several pages long. 2) You can't call bullshit on an obviously wrong conjecture without reading most of the proof. Because the glaring error in assumptions is buried on page 13 of the proof instead of at the beginning of the conjecture where it's supposed to be. (But you can call bullshit on it for simply having too vague assumptions.) 3) It's hard to apply the theorem properly because it's hard to verify the vague assumptions. 4) Different people may understand the vague assumptions (and thus the whole theorem) differently.
@Darth Vader Now, let me give you a concrete example. Here's the same conjecture (with the exact same "proof") spelled out two different ways: 1) Ceteris paribus, increasing wages will decrease the number of jobs. 2) Let the labor supply be constant and the price function of labor demand be invariant. Then increasing wages will decrease the number of jobs. There's a false assumption in there. Find it.
I am carrying on in life with the law of triviality : oh its nothing/nothing matters in life/ among the 10^80 atoms in universe we are just some spec of dust..
In electronics, you can even have "10+1=10" and if your margin error is becoming smaller, the simplification can be much more savage. The thing being that some elements have a 10% tolerance and computing exact values do not come for cheap. The best being when one eyeball a graphic to know "more or less" the value. I'll not lie, first time I used the protractor to have accurate readings ^^ After two years, you start rounding like crazy because you have a sense of what is coming in the calculation and you don't even keep track of error margin. For someone look at this, he can see a lot of weird stuff because it happened quite often that a 6 became an 8 because it fits better in coming computations ^^ And indeed funnier when cyclical functions come into play.
Proof without examples: make a false assumption and derive a contradiction (or basically, anything you want). Special case of including the claim into the assumptions, if you want.
Schrodinger's Proof. Flip the board/paper over so you can't see the theorem. Now the theorem is both true and untrue. Since it's true, you can consider it proven.
Got an A in differential equations this semester. Toughest problem was proving some shit I forgot and basically I was cracked out on adderal and just filled the page with nonsense #proofbyCumbersomeNotation
Can you please make a video on what is the correct way of practicing math to get better at it . I am a high school student from India and what is the sequence of topics you should follow in the beginning............... Please a video........ Pls
I find precalculus - Mathematics for calculus by James Stewart very clear and organized by topics in order to use what you learned in previous chapters. I don't know if it is the best, but helped me a lot.. also if you find yourself having problems understanding the first chapter, start with arithmetics first Edit: that's for a non mathematician student.
3Blue1Brown has done excellent videos on Fundamentals of Linear Algebra and Fundamentals of Analysis. Also, read a book on these topics and do the exercises.
IUT notation looks like those made up writing systems you and your friends would use to send each other secret messages. Except this time your friends are the wider mathematics community and the messages need four preprints and a workshop to understand.
Proof by infinite closeness: 3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.141, 3.1415, ... are all rational. Thus any decimal writing of pi will always be rational, no matter how many digits are used. Taking this limit as the number of decimals approaches infinity, we see that pi is rational.
Holy shit this is epic flammy. I am dying...And the proof by small margin..LOL..even the blooper at the end got me. (BruH i did not like what you did with my physics lady E=mc^2. I is a physics boi.)
One of my favourites: lengthy calculation. Oh there's a denominator of x - x0 in some place, let's multiply by that. Another lengthy calculation. Set x = x0. Obtain 0 = 0.# Called him out on that. Two weeks later, did the same thing taking the limit x -> x0.
The joke at 0:52 ruined my speakers. Please edit that sound so hopefully I'm the only one to lose his sound equipment :( I'm actually being serious now.
"Ah! but in this class, approximately is the same as equals.... well, approximately." Love this channel! kind regards 🙂 (btw, sorry if it's a silly question, but whats the reaso the channel is called flammable maths? we aren't burning functions and integrals here right😅?)
I once asked my Engineering professor in STAD(structure analysis and design), how do you get to this formula from first principles? He replied, "just remember this, you don't need to know anything else"...
@@duyaa9526 Let me see... prime between (x+1)^2 and x^2 then (x+1)-1=1 yep looks that way. Except that's only one prime for sure so p_(n+1), then p_n is at least greater than (x-1)^2 so (x+1)-(x-1)=2 so if I'm not mistaken Legendre's conjecture would prove sqrt(p_(n+1))-sqrt(p_n)
Lol man !! I HAVE A Question ...If theorem drink health drink?? Cause u say theorem is powerful. And other is theorem make up her face regularly???? ; )
On a math competition I did there was a question where we had to show weather an improper integral was convergent or divergent. I had no clue how to do that lol. I did write some stuff trying to solve it so hopefully part marks 🤞
![When Studying Maths is UNSATISFYING... [ Math Joke Video ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WaXU2vSgQSc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Proofs in University Maths be like... [ Math Joke Video ] [ Best of invalid proof techniques ] Part1](/img/n.gif)
You know you’re a math major when you don’t even have a calculator
mate:"it's true, my caculator says it"
me:"How did the calculator compute that?"
mate:
*force reboots into safe mode*
@@evoryn6235 First i thought you misspelled "Weyl-Group", but than I googled it ;)
Either way the calculator doesent know what a Weyl-Group is either.
Not there yet, still use a calculator for everything in linear algebra
My exams are online this term so they're open book and at one point I realised "Hey, I could use a calculator now! That'll make things easier!" Then proceeded to remember that I no longer own a calculator after 4 years of uni maths...
And you know you're an engineering major when you have three :')
The most important engineering proof: It's on the formula sheet so it must be true
Wrong, its on the table of contents (idiot)
Proof by it says so
Q.E.D. BIYACH!!!
p = np
As you can see this problem is trivial and doesn't require further explanation
For those new to the subject what was left implicit above is that clearly n=1 or p=0
wooooosh
@@tecy0713 That doesn't mean mathematicians can't solve it. They're doing a lot of things
@@tecy0713 u misunderstood the joke, buddy
Its just a definition
Broke: Include the thing that you're trying to prove in the assumptions
Woke: Include the thing that you're trying to prove in the definitions
BIG BRIAN
I know it is spelled wrogn
@@thedoublehelix5661 Brian do be eating tho
Broke: = = ≈
Woke: = = ≃
we cant let no privilaged ppls step on us. Doc tor says I have IQ 50 but I know what right and what wrong. woke is worst thing happen to earth since God created earth, no logic comes to them demons
Proof by break: oh it's lunchtime already, let's do this afterwards. (After lunch): as we have just proven before the break ...
xD
In engineering, we sometimes use proof by comparing shapes: A water tower basically looks like a lollipop which means it can be viewed as a point mass...which means it can be viewed as the classic car on a frictionless surface attached to a spring when performing dynamic analysis.
In summary: Water tower=car
Approximately
Kiritsu But approximately equals equal. Approximately.
Assume no air resistance.
@@SkooterxD of course, that's a given
assume spherical cow
Where is the "proof by multiplying both sides by zero" and "proof by raising both sides to the 0 power"?
Better, proof by complex logarithm.
What about proof by wolfram alpha?
420 likes looks too perfect.
Proof by dyslexia 😂 See also: proof by using greek letters that all look the same (ε, ξ, ζ)
Gino Rincon mfw, depending on handwriting, partial of psi looks like a 24 and God help you if you pick the wrong professor to confuse the two with.
I forgot what the second symbol is supposed to be, fml
@@MusicalInquisit Xi
Just use P and Rho
so true ahahah
You forgot proof by intimidation: This is a set S of real numbers. If S is not well ordered by the end of this sentence I will feed it to the wood chipper. Look S is well ordered
actually tho it can be well ordered by the wel ordering theorem right?
Proof by made up reference: Follows from a paper only available in Aramaic to be found in an ancient temple in the Nepalese mountains during a blood moon.
I often find that if I hand in my homework on clay tablets inscribed with Babylonian cuneiform that the TA can't be bothered.
@@theendofmyropemydude
I often do that or on papyrus paper with a mix of Egyptian hieroglyphics and Akkadian ideographs.
When he had borne him aloft a third league,
The eagle said to him, said to Etana,
"Look, my friend, how the land is now!"
"The sea has become a gardener's ditch".
After they had ascended to the heaven of Anu,
At the gate of Sin
The eagle and Etana did obeisance together,
But the Mother would not give him the proof.
They passed through the gates of Anu, Enlil and Ea,
The eagle and Etana did obeisance together,
But each would not give him the proof.
He saw a gate with windows, it had no seal,
And went inside.
A remarkable young woman was seated therein,
She was imposing and beautiful of feature.
A throne was set out, the ground was trodden down,
Under the throne lions were crouching.
For she was Shamash, and the eagle and Etana did obeisance together.
Etana beseeched Shamash once again,
"Shamash, why do the Annunaki refuse me?"
The goddess cried out,
"King of Kish, that power is not meant for you!"
Etana was cast out from the gate.
No god in heaven would help Kish.
On Eagle's wings, he ascended above heaven.
Beyond the sky, the Black Moon.
The eagle and Etana did obeisance together,
before the throne carved of ichor.
The King beyond time whispered to Etana,
"I know what you seek, and I will give it to you."
"But l must be given a gift as well."
"You desire it not for yourself, but for your people."
"They will bear me a gift in your stead."
"Kingship will reign in Kish, and order in Man."
"But for an age you will give unto me your nature."
"The beasts shall fall silent, and the Annunaki fade."
"Time's call will be heard, and the deathless shall die."
"To rise you will fall, and my howl shall resound."
"In time, the order you have purchased will begin to fade,
"As the soul you have sacrificed will return."
"You will know the age is done, when you hear the Black Moon's howl."
And Etana fell back to the earth, as Eagle could no longer hear him.
Proof in hand, Etana descended unto Kish.
Kish did not cry as in Etana's vision,
But Kish did cry.
@@red_isopat
That's it, that's how we solve Navier-Stokes!
I love it when flammy goes full 中国人
I think you mean 汉语
I thought the guy was japanese
@@triton62674 uh no that's the word for the chinese language, the comment said chinese people
Does he actually speak Chinese?
That's bprp lmfao
You missed the religious proof: " Can someone else prove its not true? No? Then its true. "
Can you prove the universe wasn't created last thursday? No? Exactly
I mean, if you don't try to look at the proof, you'll say there isn't one
@@MegaMoh exactly
@@MegaMoh This guy is a G. He knows the real stuff.
There's also the atheist proof: "Can someone prove it's true? No? Then it's false."
Proof by "Mathematica said so" and proof by circular references are often seen in physics papers.
LMAO I was looking for that one ^^
@@hbm293 Also proof by grad student. Here that one all the time at conferences.
Marvel: We have the best crossover...
Andrew, Zach, Flammy: "Hold my beer..."
Let's be real this was a poor man's mathvengers.
As a math guy, ”Proof by shut the hell up” was by far the funniest thing in the video
This may be a joke, but also the truth.....
Therefore, the truth=joke
Well,
Approximately
Reality is a superposition of both joke and truth.
VALID general proof by example! th-cam.com/users/ju4LqKIXS5g
Proof by referencing page 345 of grothendiecks EGA2 that hasnt even been translated to English from French.
Proof by referencing notes given to you by Grothendieck in 1990s that you lost somewhere in Marseille.
What a chad Grothendieck was. Entered graduate school knowing next to nothing and wins the Fields Medal.
Proof using Chinese Reminder Theorem
(There'd always be one chinese mathematician who already proved the assertion)
*yes, i know it's remainder; that's where the pun resides
Lmao
@Петър Баджаков and uses half the effort lol
this trivial comment has been left as an excersice to be completed by the reader...
I, the reader, gonna make the same thing that I'd do if I have to proof something as an exercise
Crying and shouting at the exercise/comment.
@@Naliathan Just like in a typical YT comment, thus proving they are the same. QeD
Gf of order p to padic rationals. Now its complete
"π^2 = g"
That's why Euler and Newton were never good friends. 😂
π^2=g=e^2=10
@@Kceam now that's 2000 IQ
@@Kceam = 10 (sin x)/x
@@rajdeepsindhu9268 as x tends to 0!!!!
@@dananjay-09 I was making a joke about "the fundamental theorem of engineering"...
I'm surprised you didn't have Andrew show up to finally understand your proofs through your constant hand waving.
Great acting skills bro. You nailed the role of the Engineer. xp
I've used "proof by necessity" before and I have to say it's the best method
Proof by Assumption:
Let's assume the Riemann hypothesis is true.
q.e.d.
Give me a million dollars. I want it now!
"I truly have a most marvelous proof for the above proposition, but alas this margin is too small to contain it. Thus, i leave it as an excercise to the reader."
Top 10 sentences before mathematicians lose their minds over trying to figure out your supposdely simple but marvelous proof.
Where is ">proof by magic", thats my favorite type of proof
Mathamagic
Forgot proof by "it's on the homework." This is my topology class. Every. Single. Theorem.
I feel you bro
Proof by not finding any counter examples: If you cannot find any counter examples, there are none, thus, the theorem holds
Fun fact: "Ceteris paribus" is economist-speak for "assuming the necessary assumptions".
Isn't it 'other things being equal'? At least that is how it is mentioned in the Gregory Mankiw textbooks...
@Darth Vader Yeah, but do you ever check whether any of the variables you're assuming to be constant aren't changed by the experiment itself?
@Darth Vader Sorry, I wrongly assumed that I'm talking to someone with formal training in math or economics. So let me start over and explain things from the beginning.
If you start with a false proposition, you can prove anything. Literally anything. Betrand Russel was once challenged by a student to demonstrate this by proving that he's the Pope from the false assumption that 1=0. The proof went like this:
"By adding 1 to both sides of the equation, we get 2=1. The set containing just me and the Pope has 2 members. But 2=1, so it has only 1 member, therefore I am the Pope."
When you try to apply a theorem in a case where its assumptions are violated, you're once again starting with a false proposition and the result you get will most likely be nonsense. Calculus 101 exams always have some question that looks like a simple application for the L'Hôpital's rule but really isn't because the assumptions are violated. And everybody who tries to use the rule despite being taught for 5 months straight to always check assumptions before applying a theorem will get the wrong result. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule
Now, the core problem with both "assuming the necessary assumptions" and "ceteris paribus" is that you're not properly spelling out what *exactly* you're assuming. (I don't really care that the scope of "ceteris paribus" is a bit more narrow than the scope of the other one.) Having such vague assumptions creates several pitfalls:
1) You may accidentaly switch between two different (contradictory) assumptions in your proof while believing that they're identical. Especially if the proof is several pages long.
2) You can't call bullshit on an obviously wrong conjecture without reading most of the proof. Because the glaring error in assumptions is buried on page 13 of the proof instead of at the beginning of the conjecture where it's supposed to be. (But you can call bullshit on it for simply having too vague assumptions.)
3) It's hard to apply the theorem properly because it's hard to verify the vague assumptions.
4) Different people may understand the vague assumptions (and thus the whole theorem) differently.
@Darth Vader Now, let me give you a concrete example. Here's the same conjecture (with the exact same "proof") spelled out two different ways:
1) Ceteris paribus, increasing wages will decrease the number of jobs.
2) Let the labor supply be constant and the price function of labor demand be invariant. Then increasing wages will decrease the number of jobs.
There's a false assumption in there. Find it.
@@nextghost price of labor doesn't matter but it does matter here
Proof by intimidation (a variant of shut-the-hell-up); proof by majority vote; proof by quid pro quo.
proof by reelection
I am carrying on in life with the law of triviality : oh its nothing/nothing matters in life/ among the 10^80 atoms in universe we are just some spec of dust..
I can remember my first calculus class on CS... our teacher was engineer and every single question: "as u can see... this is trivial"
Wait,THESE PROOFS ARE NOT VALID ?
In electronics, you can even have "10+1=10" and if your margin error is becoming smaller, the simplification can be much more savage.
The thing being that some elements have a 10% tolerance and computing exact values do not come for cheap.
The best being when one eyeball a graphic to know "more or less" the value.
I'll not lie, first time I used the protractor to have accurate readings ^^
After two years, you start rounding like crazy because you have a sense of what is coming in the calculation and you don't even keep track of error margin.
For someone look at this, he can see a lot of weird stuff because it happened quite often that a 6 became an 8 because it fits better in coming computations ^^
And indeed funnier when cyclical functions come into play.
Proof by Mistake:
We all know: e^(iπ)=-1 and e^(2iπ)=1
Now we say 0=e^(iπ) + e^(2iπ) = e^(iπ+2iπ) = e^(3iπ) = -1
Therefore 0=-1
q.e.d.
Proof without examples: make a false assumption and derive a contradiction (or basically, anything you want).
Special case of including the claim into the assumptions, if you want.
* *Let F be a totally real number* *
MFW *uses actual finger and dominoes to do proof by induction* : 🤑🤑😱😱
"proof by mastur~~" followed by "proof by vigorous handwaving". Are you sure those are two separate proofs?
Proof by getting an integer as a result, cause this cant be just a coincident.
My god.. that thumbnail is impossible to resist clicking on!
This is genuinely the funniest thing I have seen in weeks thanks papa flammy this cures depression
Proof by messy computation: Modulo sign errors, this statement is correct.
Or factors 2 (as in physics)
Schrodinger's Proof. Flip the board/paper over so you can't see the theorem. Now the theorem is both true and untrue. Since it's true, you can consider it proven.
Got an A in differential equations this semester. Toughest problem was proving some shit I forgot and basically I was cracked out on adderal and just filled the page with nonsense #proofbyCumbersomeNotation
oh man xD
4:03 I had doubt, so I used proof by wolfram alpha... it is correct
:^)
@@PapaFlammy69 No, seriously, how did you come up with that? :-)
Can you please make a video on what is the correct way of practicing math to get better at it .
I am a high school student from India and what is the sequence of topics you should follow in the beginning............... Please a video........ Pls
I find precalculus - Mathematics for calculus by James Stewart very clear and organized by topics in order to use what you learned in previous chapters. I don't know if it is the best, but helped me a lot.. also if you find yourself having problems understanding the first chapter, start with arithmetics first
Edit: that's for a non mathematician student.
Start with Multilinear Algebra, Differential Geometry and Lie Groups/Algebra.
Have Fun! :D
3Blue1Brown has done excellent videos on Fundamentals of Linear Algebra and Fundamentals of Analysis. Also, read a book on these topics and do the exercises.
he really used the power of the "even a fucking grade-schooler could now see that: "
IUT notation looks like those made up writing systems you and your friends would use to send each other secret messages. Except this time your friends are the wider mathematics community and the messages need four preprints and a workshop to understand.
o
Proof by infinite closeness: 3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.141, 3.1415, ... are all rational. Thus any decimal writing of pi will always be rational, no matter how many digits are used. Taking this limit as the number of decimals approaches infinity, we see that pi is rational.
“The proof is by magic”
this video is ♻️
Am I retarded, I though I saw some parts of the video before
"As a homework you will have to count to infinity and prove the Riemann hypothesis, the proof is trivial."
Keep coming up with more of these videos ,@FlammableMaths they are great. good luck
I had to google the eta function but when I figured out what the shirt said I figuratively died
Thank you for the video! All of you friends are super awesome! Oh, moments in this video are sad.
Holy shit this is epic flammy. I am dying...And the proof by small margin..LOL..even the blooper at the end got me.
(BruH i did not like what you did with my physics lady E=mc^2. I is a physics boi.)
Proof by hand waving hurts... Too real 😂
Good laugh to start the day. Love the int'l collaboration. Nice work bois.
On thing one of my profs does sometimes is writing: "Proof: Script" but there is no script
One of my favourites:
lengthy calculation. Oh there's a denominator of x - x0 in some place, let's multiply by that. Another lengthy calculation. Set x = x0. Obtain 0 = 0.#
Called him out on that. Two weeks later, did the same thing taking the limit x -> x0.
1:23 What is this? Physics?
Later:
Ouch....
Three legends in one vid I can’t take it 🤯🤯🤯
0:54 from where did you get that sound effect or whatever the hell that is????
6:07 proof by WHAT
Proof by citation "cantor said its true and I trust him on this one"
Oh god, I had the proof-by-inspection guy as my first math professor. "Just remember this equals that. Do a few tricks, and now we get the result."
A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer walk into a bar.
The joke at 0:52 ruined my speakers. Please edit that sound so hopefully I'm the only one to lose his sound equipment :( I'm actually being serious now.
How about proof by magic?
That Fermat cult was hilarious.
That “You’re physics student, right?“ gets the good ol’ funny cause it is true
"Ah! but in this class, approximately is the same as equals.... well, approximately."
Love this channel! kind regards 🙂
(btw, sorry if it's a silly question, but whats the reaso the channel is called flammable maths? we aren't burning functions and integrals here right😅?)
for no particular reason tbh ^^`
The king of engineering kills me everytime actually hilarious
What does the square with the squiggle mean?
I admit I once did a proof by necessity in a french exam haha, desperate times
mfw this theorem is quite powerful but the region that the curve encloses must be completely analytic
nobody:
my teacher explaining coca cola is stupid because of the shape of their 0.33l cans:
Can someone explain me why he draws a square and fills it up?
What does the square with a squiggle inside mean? Never seen it before in eng
@@PapaFlammy69 ahh okay thanks!
6:05 I blinked a few times to make sure I wasn't hallucinating
good impression of Pierre De Fermat in your proof by small margin Papa Flammy.
2:33 i caught the reference because I had a class about it litteraly today
Assuming the necessary assumptions
WOW
Engineering proof: the thing works so clearly my math was right enough
My favourite method is 'it is true because I want it to be true'. 100% successful
Prove that his attractiveness is exponentially correlated to the time you listen to him. It’s trivial, therefore QED.
Proof by applying Definitions. When you don't know what to do, so you write down the definition and the statement immediately follows
2:30 it's the case of 90% of Fermat's work actually
I once asked my Engineering professor in STAD(structure analysis and design), how do you get to this formula from first principles? He replied, "just remember this, you don't need to know anything else"...
And here i am enyoing ma boi
instead of prepearing for my Ana exam tomorrow : (
I don't know what a hileal or whatever space is but when he said
"Let h is a hileal space."
I felt that
0:17 does this statement /conjucter has a name?
@@duyaa9526 Let me see... prime between (x+1)^2 and x^2 then (x+1)-1=1 yep looks that way. Except that's only one prime for sure so p_(n+1), then p_n is at least greater than (x-1)^2 so (x+1)-(x-1)=2 so if I'm not mistaken Legendre's conjecture would prove sqrt(p_(n+1))-sqrt(p_n)
I tried reading the proof of the abc conjecture... It's ridiculous... Help
The experts have the exact same reaction. Lol
"I can't read"
*Draws a square*
True words spoken
1:21
BTW the value for the integral of (2pi^2)/24 is correct.
Lol man !! I HAVE A Question ...If theorem drink health drink?? Cause u say theorem is powerful.
And other is theorem make up her face regularly???? ; )
Here we go again!
I like how almost half of these were proof by "what the heck is that?"
On a math competition I did there was a question where we had to show weather an improper integral was convergent or divergent. I had no clue how to do that lol. I did write some stuff trying to solve it so hopefully part marks 🤞
Is proximated to proximated to equal to or proximated to equal to equal to