At 9:22 you wrote C and said "that constant" when it should have been e^C. You could rename it to e^C=K or something, because it's just another arbitrary constant. Although that implies that K is positive, you could have written ln|W|, with the absolute value, earlier. Then it's possible for W = -Ke^(.......). (Also, you kind of assumed that W was nonzero when you divided by W while separating the variables...... someone could consider the W=0 case separately if they did a more thorough proof). When I learned about Abel's theorem in an intro to differential equations class, it seemed so arbitrary. It's nice to see a proof of it.
Thank you so much sir❤❤❤
From West Bengal, Siliguri❤❤❤
Your way of teaching is amazing
THANK YOU！The proof is clear and easy to understand!!
At 9:22 you wrote C and said "that constant" when it should have been e^C. You could rename it to e^C=K or something, because it's just another arbitrary constant. Although that implies that K is positive, you could have written ln|W|, with the absolute value, earlier. Then it's possible for W = -Ke^(.......). (Also, you kind of assumed that W was nonzero when you divided by W while separating the variables...... someone could consider the W=0 case separately if they did a more thorough proof).
When I learned about Abel's theorem in an intro to differential equations class, it seemed so arbitrary. It's nice to see a proof of it.
Hello sir, I have a doubt, can we generalize this to an nth order differential equation?? please tell me sir......
Thank you for sharing these videos. They are great.
Thank you Mr Penn
Thank you sir
and that's a good place to stop for tonight