I always have a problems with that types of proofs in abstract algebra, so thank you for your content. tbh, when I saw your channel I didn’t like you, well, that’s normal for people, but you have been started to be in my recommendations, and sometimes I see EXACT topics I would like to know more… So I’ve been starting to love your content and your way to describe hard topics for student. I’m from Russia, and even in the internet I din’t meet a lot of really good teachers. I can numerate them by my 2 or even 1 hand. So thank you for making your video, which will help really a lot of people, even they aren’t commenting or liking your videos.
Thanks for the great videos. As a math teacher, I get great ideas from them. One note: you also used the commutativity of vector addition. When adding -k0, you add from the left on one side and the right on the other.
When you get to k0 = k0+k0, is it legal to then reason that k0 must be 0, because 0 is the only element of a group that, when combined with another element, gives back itself? There is an existing proof of the uniqueness of the 0 element of a group, and that it is the only element that ever combines with another element to render itself, and it's trivial to show that vector spaces fit the four requirements of a group over addition: closure, associativity, identity, and inverses, because those are given in the definition of a vector space.
-(k0) cannot be written without an additional axiom. Likewise, (k0)+ -(k0) looks ugly and the additional axiom PN-axiom is needed there. If it were translated into one of the programming languages, it would lead to a syntax error in the message. It is more correct to write (k0) + (-k0) = (k0) + (k0) + (-k0). Even putting minus leak from the bracket is not in your set of axioms at all. The task was to use only the given set of vector space axioms.😎
Students have such difficulty understanding these type of proofs. I myself never had any trouble with proofs like this (that doesn't mean I never had trouble with proofs!!)
I always have a problems with that types of proofs in abstract algebra, so thank you for your content. tbh, when I saw your channel I didn’t like you, well, that’s normal for people, but you have been started to be in my recommendations, and sometimes I see EXACT topics I would like to know more… So I’ve been starting to love your content and your way to describe hard topics for student. I’m from Russia, and even in the internet I din’t meet a lot of really good teachers. I can numerate them by my 2 or even 1 hand. So thank you for making your video, which will help really a lot of people, even they aren’t commenting or liking your videos.
Thanks for the great videos. As a math teacher, I get great ideas from them.
One note: you also used the commutativity of vector addition. When adding -k0, you add from the left on one side and the right on the other.
Symmetric property of equality, sir.
In any case it is axiomatic that watching Prime Newtons follows logically from a desire to learn mathematics. 🎉😊
Symmetric!
Equality is an equivalence relation
you have a nice voice, and explain stuff very well. Keep it up man!
Superb
Can I know software u r using make thumbnail with math formulas and all stuff
PowerPoint ->Draw->Ink to math
bro is Dora the explorer for math 💀
Dora is explorer in Spanish.. so Dora the explorer is .. Dora squared minus swiper no swiping
When you get to k0 = k0+k0, is it legal to then reason that k0 must be 0, because 0 is the only element of a group that, when combined with another element, gives back itself? There is an existing proof of the uniqueness of the 0 element of a group, and that it is the only element that ever combines with another element to render itself, and it's trivial to show that vector spaces fit the four requirements of a group over addition: closure, associativity, identity, and inverses, because those are given in the definition of a vector space.
By any change, do you know any book that may teach you proofs for linear algebra
-(k0) cannot be written without an additional axiom. Likewise, (k0)+ -(k0) looks ugly and the additional axiom PN-axiom is needed there. If it were translated into one of the programming languages, it would lead to a syntax error in the message. It is more correct to write (k0) + (-k0) = (k0) + (k0) + (-k0). Even putting minus leak from the bracket is not in your set of axioms at all. The task was to use only the given set of vector space axioms.😎
You are amazing, God bless you
Amen!
Students have such difficulty understanding these type of proofs. I myself never had any trouble with proofs like this (that doesn't mean I never had trouble with proofs!!)
Your my best teacher
well done, sir.
bhai sahab maza aa gaya
Proof for the algorithm
Thanks
I liked it