I'm not sure i get this video..the first example is correct but for the minus sign.and actually if the constant c has a negative sign then minus ngative is positive it is correct..
For the people who don’t get the one at 1:03; the funny symbol is the partial derivative sign and is normally used to differentiate an for one variable in specific, in this case it was x. But since the function f(x) was only in terms of x, then there is no need to take the partial derivative, just differentiate it normally!
Ooooo, I sense a contradiction. A mathematician with a sense of humor, but he's German, and _everybody_ knows Germans have no sense of humor, sooooo, ...
Seriously what is wrong with you? Can't believe TH-cam allows sh*t like this. Those horrific images have scarred me for life. I dont think I'll ever be able to forget them.
That would actually be a fun problem, having the limits of integration be definite integrals that you must solve to find out the limits before you can actually integrate the main function
@@alberteinstein3612 isn't that just three consecutive tasks? It gets more interesting if you can't get a number for one of the limits, however (like with the Pi- & Gammafunction)
You the guy who rubber-stamped building the "skyscraper" with units given in inches, not feet? pi^je + 1 =0 is totally good enough, but 3^i3 wouldn't pass the inspection.
@@BiscuitZombies In (college-level) algebra, you encounter various mathematical structures, including one type known as fields. Broadly speaking, a field is a set whose elements can be added, subtracted, multiplied, and divided. Examples are the rationals (Q), the reals (R), and the complex numbers (C). Other examples are given by the integers modulo a prime number p (generally written as F_p). If you add together p copies of any element of F_p, you get 0. This is what is meant by a field having a characteristic of p, or sometimes simply said to have a finite characteristic. (The familiar fields I mentioned earlier - Q, R, C - are said to have characteristic 0. Confusingly, a field of characteristic 0 is not considered to have a finite characteristic. Go figure.) There are other examples of fields having a characteristic of p (infinitely many, in fact), but the characteristic of a field must always be a prime number. (Deep breath.) Now that that's out of the way, if a and b are elements of a field of characteristic 2, then (a+b)^2 = (a+b)*(a+b) = a*a + a*b + b*a + b*b = a*a + 0 + b*b = a^2 + b^2, as the middle two terms cancel. (I neglected to mention that the definition of a field includes the usual commutative, associative, and distributive properties of addition and multiplication - something which cannot be assumed in general.) They cancel because, whatever a*b (= b*a) is, adding it to itself results in 0. I hope this answers your question. Sorry for its length, but I don't know what level you're at.
1.) Sum of Sigma from Sigma=1 to n = n(n+1)/2 2.) Integral of 1 dx = x+c 3.) (Integral of 1 dx) x = x^2 + c_1 x = x^2/2 - c, this implies c = c_2 x - x^2/2 4.) Integral of e^x de = x e^(x-1) 5.) Assuming i is a variable, i = (2n+1) pi j / (3 ln(3)), where n is an integer, and j is the imaginary unit 7.) Assuming pi is a variable, this has no real solutions. Assuming e is a variable, the solutions are x > pi and 0
0:02 Seems perfectly legitimate. I would encourage the use the lower case sigma, or better still, the greek letter pi, for the summation index. 0:27 I think this is a really important detail to show students learning functions - they become too attached to the label given to the member of the domain. if f(x) = 3x + 1 then f(y) = 3y +1 and f(!) = 3! + 1 = 7 and so on. So it doesn't really matter on the symbol used to denote the argument - what an excellent way to demonstrate this by using a different typeface for x. 0:31 Student is clearly mathematically capable, but has written the 9's backwards. Clearly 9^pi < pi^9 0:38 I would suggest to the reader to raise both sides to the power of four to verify this for himself.
Came for the discomfort, stayed for the humor - and the *WII* music just made it better. Had a good laugh yesternight while I took a break from studying! 😂😊
Nope, made me 50 % giggle my ass off and 50 % just "yeah, that's legit and I could give this to my students" (or criticizing that if we leave the realm of Riemann integrals, some could make sense). I know I'm going one step too far commenting to a joke, but, yo, flammy! 0:18 should have cursive *e*. Unless you're doing that deliberately in which case I applaud for anyone making a typographical joke. Also: 0:43 Isn't that supposed to evaluate to \sqrt{E/m}??
The purpose of writing down equations is to communicate precise mathematical relationships between the quantities in the equation. For this reason, certain conventions have arisen over the years to aid good communication. Different publishers will have their own advice on these. What I present below is one such set of conventions. Quantities that do not vary are written in an upright typeface, so, for instance, numerical values, 0,1,2, e=2.712.., π=3.1415..., i=√(-1) are all in an upright font. The standard functions of mathematics do not change and so, sin, cos, tan, exp, log, Ei, J₀ would all be upright. Anything that varies is usually written in a slanted or italic font, so for the Bessel function Jₙ, the J would be upright, but the n would be slanted. The variable in a sum of integral varies and so should be in italics. The idea is to facilitate accurate communication. The good mathematician will try to avoid misundertandings and ambiguities in his or her writings. Let's take a look at the examples in the video: 0:03 The summation sign has been used instead of a slanted capital sigma, as such it invites confusion, the same symbol (summation, which is an upright symbol) is being used as a substitute for big sigma. It is good advice to change the typeface at least, and (better) change the name of the dummy variable. 0:06 Potentially okay (depending on context). If x is a differential form (or a measure) then this is okay. If it is not, then it likely to be a misformed integral, and hence incorrect mathematics. 0:08 Better to use an upright d for the differential as this is a standard operator of mathematics. The spacing a little bit cramped. 0:12 Nothing wrong with this, except the visual spacing could be tweaked. Especially for multiple integrals writing the measure next to the integral sign is a very useful thing to do as then it visually ties the limits on the integral to the integration variable. Having -c rather then +c is absolutely fine, especially if it is known (or guessed) that with a minus sign then c is positive. It can aid explanation. 017: Strictly speaking this is okay, but the name of integration variable (which is correctly in italics) might lead to confusion, so it is best to change it in the interests of good communication. For the same reason, it is unwise to use "i" as an index of a sum in a complex variable problem, or the use "o" ever (it is too easily confused with 0, especially if hand-written). 0:21: It's often difficult to write accurate mathematics in a text document. 0:26: The upright typeface is odd here. I'm not aware of any standard mathematical function called f or x, though perhaps they exist in certain specialized areas. 0:32: Typeface are wrong, as is the inequality. 0:36: See 0:21. 0:42: This is okay. It is written as an equation (that constrains a and b), not an identity, so it is as fine as writing a+b=0. 0:46: No problem. If phi is the golden ratio, then it would be in an upright font, but that may not be the intention. 0:51: Upright fonts for the standard functions. 0:56: Not got a problem with this (other than using j instead of i). 1:03: No problem, sometimes it is important to be clear about the variables a function should be regarded as being in terms of. Especially true for something like thermodynamics. Apply your notation in a way that conveys your meaning most clearly and accurately. 1:11: The integration variable varies and so should be in italic type. 1:16: Untrue (if I interpret the symbols correctly). 1:20: Can only imagine this might be used in a table for instance, where for terms that might be there in other entries are missing in this one, and the author wanted to draw attention to the fact. Difficult to justify (!) otherwise. 1:25: Okay... but you'd better define the thing, as it doesn't make sense as a field. 1:31: An old notation for the second derivative was ddf/dx², which makes sense. This particular expression is ill-formed. 1:35: Not a problem, but it is an equation, not an identity (e.g., it holds if either f or g identically zero up to a set of measure zero).
@@ishansen6661 Also, electrical engineers use j, since i is already used for current. Also also, I've seen Papa Flammy use J for the 2×2 matrix {{0,1},{-1,0}}, since I is already taken for the identity matrix.
The Gamma function is not bijective, so it is not invertible. However, it is conceivable that a right-inverse may exist, just not a left-inverse. With that said, if you restrict yourself to a suitable subdomain of the function, then you can invert the function on such a domain. In this case, you would probably want to use the Lagrange inversion theorem accordingly.
By the inverse function theorem, locally one can invert the gamma function about any point in the complex plane where the derivative does not vanish. There is no global inverse however since the derivative of the gamma function has a saddle point between 1 and 2.
FYI, j is the symbol for current density. It is used in Maxwell's Equation 4 (divergence × B) = mu_0 J + mu_0 epsilon_0 dE/dt) and in ohm's law (E = j(sigma)).
I'm a 12th grade student in Germany, and a few months ago, when we had integrals in math, there was an exercise like at 0:08 in our book. Everyone was completely confused (including my teacher), but later I got to realise that the "dx" is not just a convention but actually means a multiplication by dx. So it actually does make sense, and it's equal to x + C
oh dear lord no EDIT: Yay, a heart! It’s three in the morning where I live, but I want to thank you nonetheless EDIT: what editing takes it away!?!? Noooooooo come backkkk
Mathemathician: *gets triggered*
Physicist: Something bad is about to happen, I can feel it
Engineer: Seems nothing wrong with this video
Nope, engineers are outraged about 0:31
As mathematician at heart: Reeeeeeeeeeeeee.
As a professional engineer: I I I'm not triggered really I'm not.
I'm not sure i get this video..the first example is correct but for the minus sign.and actually if the constant c has a negative sign then minus ngative is positive it is correct..
@@rhythmmandal3377 literally the same lol
@TheSearchingTruth I envy you.
honestly the pauses in the music made me more uncomfortable than anything on the screen did
haha XD 2nd mission accomplished :'D
The Wii did that to people
@@neilgerace355 *Wii* like to do this to people
@@PapaFlammy69 i had to mute the video in order to get through LOL this is what i get
xDDD
The e^x integral with respect to e, almost made me puke.
xD
Imagine writing f(x) = integral of e^x de in class :D
@@Supremebubble So that f(x)(e) = e^(x+1)/(x+1) + C
where f : ℝ → (ℝ → ℝ) ?
Nice, higher order functions!
Made me puke
@@mskiptr Curryfication!
Okay who taught an engineer to use LaTeX?
Internet i guess
lAtEk
1:36 Man, the dream.
Truly!!!!!!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Integral would have been much easire then😂😂😂
Maybe that should be the postgrad's dream, after the freshman's and sophomore's
So true
Just imagine we don’t have to do By Parts... how good will our life be...
What a simpler world that would be.....😌
Ah yes, 3^(i3) + 1 = 0, beautiful.
It took me so long to notice what the joke was, now I feel like a massive dumbass 🤦♀️
Ah yes, my favorite equation
@@fetchstixRHD hahahaha that triggers even me,a linguist
Could someone explain
@@kadirdumm8572: 𝑒 and π are "equal to" 3...
πʲᵉ where j stands for Jens, the mathematical cringe guy, e stands for engineer and π stands for 3.
Watching this feels like proving somthing inside a fever dream
bruh
Same
For the people who don’t get the one at 1:03; the funny symbol is the partial derivative sign and is normally used to differentiate an for one variable in specific, in this case it was x. But since the function f(x) was only in terms of x, then there is no need to take the partial derivative, just differentiate it normally!
Oh thank you, I always had trouble with those in college, and I still trip over 'em.
That one took me a sec to realize what was wrong
@@zasharan2it's not wrong but there's no need to write it in this case
@@thecoolnewsguy oh yeah i guess that's true lol
and written like this, f(x) is just a number, so we're taking the derivative of a number, which makes it even more cursed
Mathematician with a sense of humor lol
*sense of horror, i'm badly triggered
Ooooo, I sense a contradiction. A mathematician with a sense of humor, but he's German, and _everybody_ knows Germans have no sense of humor, sooooo, ...
unheard of
matematik kanallı izleyen türk mü
gel bi sarılalım knk
Seriously what is wrong with you? Can't believe TH-cam allows sh*t like this. Those horrific images have scarred me for life. I dont think I'll ever be able to forget them.
Okay the sarcasm is a bit much but yeah I'm very uncomfortable
Totally agreed with you
Did you get out of the trauma yet?
@@fishyc43sar A bit, I still get nightmares from time to time
Dude are you out of your trauma yet ?
I like when the boundries of the integral are also little integrals
İ like when the antiderrivative is an integral and the boundries
I like when the components of a vector are all integrals
No
That would actually be a fun problem, having the limits of integration be definite integrals that you must solve to find out the limits before you can actually integrate the main function
@@alberteinstein3612 isn't that just three consecutive tasks? It gets more interesting if you can't get a number for one of the limits, however (like with the Pi- & Gammafunction)
Engineer: I don’t get the joke...?
You the guy who rubber-stamped building the "skyscraper" with units given in inches, not feet? pi^je + 1 =0 is totally good enough, but 3^i3 wouldn't pass the inspection.
0:03 technically this is valid because we are adding a bunch of big sigmas and NOT sums (the big sigma is just a dummy variable)
Yep friend I support I also thought the same.
@Lolopopolo Yep, same for using d as integration dummy variable
Almost all of them are perfectly valid, just... off.
same goes for 1:10
S(n) = sum(1 < sigma < n, sigma)
= sum(1 < s < n, s)
= 1 + 2 + ... + (n-1) + n
sqrt(a^2 + b^2) = a + b is perfectly valid... in a field of characteristic 2.
Is it true in F1 though?
@@thephysicistcuber175 Vacuously, yes.
@@tomkerruish2982 Understandable, have a nice day.
Explain?
@@BiscuitZombies In (college-level) algebra, you encounter various mathematical structures, including one type known as fields. Broadly speaking, a field is a set whose elements can be added, subtracted, multiplied, and divided. Examples are the rationals (Q), the reals (R), and the complex numbers (C). Other examples are given by the integers modulo a prime number p (generally written as F_p). If you add together p copies of any element of F_p, you get 0. This is what is meant by a field having a characteristic of p, or sometimes simply said to have a finite characteristic. (The familiar fields I mentioned earlier - Q, R, C - are said to have characteristic 0. Confusingly, a field of characteristic 0 is not considered to have a finite characteristic. Go figure.) There are other examples of fields having a characteristic of p (infinitely many, in fact), but the characteristic of a field must always be a prime number.
(Deep breath.) Now that that's out of the way, if a and b are elements of a field of characteristic 2, then (a+b)^2 = (a+b)*(a+b) = a*a + a*b + b*a + b*b = a*a + 0 + b*b = a^2 + b^2, as the middle two terms cancel. (I neglected to mention that the definition of a field includes the usual commutative, associative, and distributive properties of addition and multiplication - something which cannot be assumed in general.) They cancel because, whatever a*b (= b*a) is, adding it to itself results in 0.
I hope this answers your question. Sorry for its length, but I don't know what level you're at.
0:21 Engineers: Yeah, it's beautiful. _Sheds_ _a_ _tear_
I've read maths papers which put the dx before the integrand unironically and I still am recovering from AIDS
I'm not sure what's worse: that the Euler identities are wrong, or that e is being used in the exponent.
pi=e, that's the meme of it.
Euler? Who's that bloke? I only know of Relue's identity.
e = 2, pi = 3, so e^pi < pi^e
hey π = e = 3
Video: Shows integral of e^x
Me: Ok that's not too bad
Video: with respect to e
* heavy breathing *
1:35 if only it were that easy... IF ONLY T_T
1.) Sum of Sigma from Sigma=1 to n = n(n+1)/2
2.) Integral of 1 dx = x+c
3.) (Integral of 1 dx) x = x^2 + c_1 x = x^2/2 - c, this implies c = c_2 x - x^2/2
4.) Integral of e^x de = x e^(x-1)
5.) Assuming i is a variable, i = (2n+1) pi j / (3 ln(3)), where n is an integer, and j is the imaginary unit
7.) Assuming pi is a variable, this has no real solutions. Assuming e is a variable, the solutions are x > pi and 0
eBic
Shouldn't the 4th one be (e^(x+1))/(x+1)?
I am genuinely triggered
@@good_guy_SGyes it should :)
also (a + b)^p = a^p + b^p for all a and b in the field Fp and pretty sure in any field with charF = p
minus C really did something to my brain, triggered all the way back from AP calc when we had "PLUS C" drilled into our pubescent craniums
This is some Keter class cognito hazard right here😂😂😂
I need clearance to use class D amnestics on myself sir.
alper akyuz permission granted, go ahead😂😂😂
@@mazdoctorxd permission granted for what sir?
alper akyuz report to the site director for debriefing... it’s better you ask no more regarding this😂😂😂
Dr. [REDACTED] will not be pleased with this
I tutor high schoolers in math. Sqrt[a^2+b^2]=a+b actually triggers me so much, especially students who are taking calculus class.
0:02 Seems perfectly legitimate. I would encourage the use the lower case sigma, or better still, the greek letter pi, for the summation index.
0:27 I think this is a really important detail to show students learning functions - they become too attached to the label given to the member of the domain. if f(x) = 3x + 1 then f(y) = 3y +1 and f(!) = 3! + 1 = 7 and so on. So it doesn't really matter on the symbol used to denote the argument - what an excellent way to demonstrate this by using a different typeface for x.
0:31 Student is clearly mathematically capable, but has written the 9's backwards. Clearly 9^pi < pi^9
0:38 I would suggest to the reader to raise both sides to the power of four to verify this for himself.
f(!) = 7
I'm dying
0:27 I think that the equation is not written in italics. Many people get triggered by this
Your point about i = -1 is giving me more of an aneurism than the entire video combined, because you’re not wrong. You’re not wrong and it hurts.
Omg you said “himself” how awful you are (jk)
I'm a recently graduated engineer, and what terrifies me most is...
*some of the integrals looked right to me.*
0:12 I mean this is perfectly correct, I could even see it used unironically (in physics especially)
Yeah I always do this when there are bra-kets within the integral
I don't understand this video, I'll return in a year to feel the pain.
Hi
What the heck Papa!?
My brain hurts after watching this
I felt physical cringe at 1:11
Why is 0:42 in this video when a and b are obviously elements of a field of characteristic 2?
Finally, a video with some rigorous math!
:D
This video needs to be age-restricted, can't let the kids see those scary integrals!
:D
You know you're a nerd when you're rolling on the floor because of this magic :)
Man the one with e^x de got me laughing
Also the the one where x isn't italic in f(x)...
1:14 what an absolute (intellectual) madlad
This makes me more uncomfortable than my liberal arts classes.
That second one we use in physics a lot.
∫dx? It looks fine at first glance, but it's implied that you WILL forget the +C.
0:12 is technically correct but we mathematicians are way too used to certain notation
But shouldn't there be parentheses to indicate that x is part of the integral too?
@@sttlok No, because it's only the product of dx and x. No need parentheses.
@@Diaming787 Ik that now haha
I prefer that actually, because the integral dx behaves more like an operator acting on the left side of where the integrand would go.
@@Diaming787 I hope you never write a textbook haha
Came for the discomfort, stayed for the humor - and the *WII* music just made it better. Had a good laugh yesternight while I took a break from studying! 😂😊
:D
Integration of d dd was hilarious 😂
Nope, made me 50 % giggle my ass off and 50 % just "yeah, that's legit and I could give this to my students" (or criticizing that if we leave the realm of Riemann integrals, some could make sense).
I know I'm going one step too far commenting to a joke, but, yo, flammy! 0:18 should have cursive *e*. Unless you're doing that deliberately in which case I applaud for anyone making a typographical joke.
Also: 0:43 Isn't that supposed to evaluate to \sqrt{E/m}??
1:16 funny thing is that "je" in french means "i" in english (as "myself")
That's the joke
Why did I laugh so hard at this monstrocity
1:26 I didn't expect something like this. xD
1:11, after seeing it I shall not have a good night sleep tonight 😶
sry :'(
That one made me crack lol
The purpose of writing down equations is to communicate precise mathematical relationships between the quantities in the equation. For this reason, certain conventions have arisen over the years to aid good communication. Different publishers will have their own advice on these. What I present below is one such set of conventions.
Quantities that do not vary are written in an upright typeface, so, for instance, numerical values, 0,1,2, e=2.712.., π=3.1415..., i=√(-1) are all in an upright font. The standard functions of mathematics do not change and so, sin, cos, tan, exp, log, Ei, J₀ would all be upright. Anything that varies is usually written in a slanted or italic font, so for the Bessel function Jₙ, the J would be upright, but the n would be slanted. The variable in a sum of integral varies and so should be in italics.
The idea is to facilitate accurate communication. The good mathematician will try to avoid misundertandings and ambiguities in his or her writings.
Let's take a look at the examples in the video:
0:03 The summation sign has been used instead of a slanted capital sigma, as such it invites confusion, the same symbol (summation, which is an upright symbol) is being used as a substitute for big sigma. It is good advice to change the typeface at least, and (better) change the name of the dummy variable.
0:06 Potentially okay (depending on context). If x is a differential form (or a measure) then this is okay. If it is not, then it likely to be a misformed integral, and hence incorrect mathematics.
0:08 Better to use an upright d for the differential as this is a standard operator of mathematics. The spacing a little bit cramped.
0:12 Nothing wrong with this, except the visual spacing could be tweaked. Especially for multiple integrals writing the measure next to the integral sign is a very useful thing to do as then it visually ties the limits on the integral to the integration variable. Having -c rather then +c is absolutely fine, especially if it is known (or guessed) that with a minus sign then c is positive. It can aid explanation.
017: Strictly speaking this is okay, but the name of integration variable (which is correctly in italics) might lead to confusion, so it is best to change it in the interests of good communication. For the same reason, it is unwise to use "i" as an index of a sum in a complex variable problem, or the use "o" ever (it is too easily confused with 0, especially if hand-written).
0:21: It's often difficult to write accurate mathematics in a text document.
0:26: The upright typeface is odd here. I'm not aware of any standard mathematical function called f or x, though perhaps they exist in certain specialized areas.
0:32: Typeface are wrong, as is the inequality.
0:36: See 0:21.
0:42: This is okay. It is written as an equation (that constrains a and b), not an identity, so it is as fine as writing a+b=0.
0:46: No problem. If phi is the golden ratio, then it would be in an upright font, but that may not be the intention.
0:51: Upright fonts for the standard functions.
0:56: Not got a problem with this (other than using j instead of i).
1:03: No problem, sometimes it is important to be clear about the variables a function should be regarded as being in terms of. Especially true for something like thermodynamics. Apply your notation in a way that conveys your meaning most clearly and accurately.
1:11: The integration variable varies and so should be in italic type.
1:16: Untrue (if I interpret the symbols correctly).
1:20: Can only imagine this might be used in a table for instance, where for terms that might be there in other entries are missing in this one, and the author wanted to draw attention to the fact. Difficult to justify (!) otherwise.
1:25: Okay... but you'd better define the thing, as it doesn't make sense as a field.
1:31: An old notation for the second derivative was ddf/dx², which makes sense. This particular expression is ill-formed.
1:35: Not a problem, but it is an equation, not an identity (e.g., it holds if either f or g identically zero up to a set of measure zero).
My day is ruined and I shall now proceed to stare at a blank screen while I process what I saw. I need to follow you on twitter now
:DDD
1:05 y-you mean jmagjnary unjt
or or is that the joke
to be triggered at that ._.
Well that "quaternions" search them on wiki and you know why he wrote "jmagjnary unit" 🤣🤣
@@ishansen6661 Also, electrical engineers use j, since i is already used for current. Also also, I've seen Papa Flammy use J for the 2×2 matrix {{0,1},{-1,0}}, since I is already taken for the identity matrix.
Amazing
I want to die now.
:DD
How could one find the inverse of an expression involving a definite integral expression? For example, what's the inverse of the gamma function?
The Gamma function is not bijective, so it is not invertible. However, it is conceivable that a right-inverse may exist, just not a left-inverse.
With that said, if you restrict yourself to a suitable subdomain of the function, then you can invert the function on such a domain. In this case, you would probably want to use the Lagrange inversion theorem accordingly.
By the inverse function theorem, locally one can invert the gamma function about any point in the complex plane where the derivative does not vanish. There is no global inverse however since the derivative of the gamma function has a saddle point between 1 and 2.
The only reason why I'm uncomfortable is because i don't understand any of these.
the first 2 are correct right? i don't see any problem
1:02 is a calc 1 student who once saw a video on multivariable calculus, but has no idea what partial derivatives are and just wants to flex
Me, an electrical engineer: The imaginary unit is j, i is the symbol for current.
FYI, j is the symbol for current density. It is used in Maxwell's Equation 4 (divergence × B) = mu_0 J + mu_0 epsilon_0 dE/dt) and in ohm's law (E = j(sigma)).
@@pritivarshney2128 That's priti funny my dude
@@CrabSpy Yep.
you should totally do a video on 0:42, it's such a neat little graph, a lot like your logarithmic badboy series log(a+b) = log(a)+log(b)
This hits home.
:'(
Writing the differentials after the integral sign is pretty much standard in physics.
Me: Haha oh Papa you're so damn funny
Me Inside: Rigourously Screaming
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Just wanted to ask a problem what is differentiation of sinx with respect to dsinx
I don't understand this, i'll be back in a year to feel the pain
As an engineering student, this made me uncomfy as hell aaaaaa
Just looks like my normal working whenever I try to make a derivation
I don‘t think I want to see it after that triggering and incredibly uncomfortable day lol
is this what hell looks like??
hell isn't even half that bad ngl
I don't know what it looks like, but it does sound like the Mii Plaza
I would be upset of I knew anything beyond algebra
I, an engineer :" dunno, seems fair to me"
Well, seems like nightmares are my early birthday present this year...
xD
just woke up in my time zone-day can only get better from here right ?
It is said that there are angels and demons, and then there's Papa Flammy in Mathematics.
Kudos! 😂
Good combination of bad maths, abuse of notation, and just correct maths that will trigger any warm blooded human
Great that I have seen this before getting admission into high school. Now I won't feel triggered in the future.
That single element field hurt
I showed this to my math teacher. She became a Physicist
I genuinely want to see some of these
Ngl 3^(3i) and π^(ie) are both pretty close to -1
of course, since pi=e=3
Its like one of those videos that kill you within 3 days of watching it...only faster .
Im not sure if i should laugh, cry out in pain or rage in anger XD
xD
The thumbnail is actually how our elektromagnetics teachers notates sometimes.
Ngl that -c is what I’m gonna use the next time a test rolls around
Mathematicians after this: my life has been a lie. I will die
Bro the integral of d dd had me laughing so hard
My Wolfram Mathematica just crashed again, thanks to you, papa flammy.
I'm a 12th grade student in Germany, and a few months ago, when we had integrals in math, there was an exercise like at 0:08 in our book. Everyone was completely confused (including my teacher), but later I got to realise that the "dx" is not just a convention but actually means a multiplication by dx. So it actually does make sense, and it's equal to x + C
What's this font? Is there any latex package for it?
It is latex font lol
I was not triggered for some of them at the starting but soon began to feel the extreme urge to curse
:^D
I would argue the most beautiful formula is 21^2 - 21 = 420
These are basically all my freshman's dreams.
:D
There is no lawful option but capital punishment for this kind of heinous crime.
making sqrt(a² + b²) = a + b feels like I unplugged a usb drive without ejecting it first
Me, an engineer: the music is very uncomfortable yes
This is the same feeling when I play antichess.
oh dear lord no
EDIT: Yay, a heart! It’s three in the morning where I live, but I want to thank you nonetheless
EDIT: what editing takes it away!?!? Noooooooo come backkkk
I never felt so tortured in my entire life
I kind of wanna hit my head against the wall to delete this video out of my memories.
Damn, this Jens Fehlau guy is a savage!
:D
Jimagulinary unit 😡
Most people consider euler's identity to be the most beautiful equation in mathematics:
23^i + 1 ≈ 0
OMG the most insane math video eveerrr!
Thank you Mr Fehlau!