Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

a fantastic animated explanation by Grant Sanderson why the probability distribution of max(x,y) is same as that of √x, where x,y are independent uniform(0,1) random variables. video source:

Probability and Statistics

80,724 subscribers

18,460 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Здоровье и велнес Наука и технологии Образование

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Let X = exp(A²/2) and Y=exp(B²/2) where A,B are joint normal with mean 0, variance 1, and correlation ρ (between 0 and 1). Then, E[X|Y] = Y/ρ > Y E[Y|X] = X/ρ > X So X is greater than Y 'on average', and Y is greater than X on average. Here's a proof of that

Let X = exp(A²/2) and Y=exp(B²/2) where A,B are joint normal with mean 0, variance 1, and correlation ρ (between 0 and 1). Then, E[X|Y] = Y/ρ > Y E[Y|X] = X/ρ > X So X is greater than Y 'on average', and Y is greater than X on average. Here's a proof of that

Almost Sure

31,334 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

New TikTok video: How can we *visually* show the difference of squares formula is x²-y²=(x-y)(x+y)?

New TikTok video: How can we visually show the difference of squares formula is x²-y²=(x-y)(x+y)?

Howie Hua

30,069 просмотров • 3 лет назад

X-Men '97 is an American animated television series created for the streaming service Disney+ It is a revival of X-Men: The Animated Series (1992–1997) produced by Marvel Studios Animation.

X-Men '97 is an American animated television series created for the streaming service Disney+ It is a revival of X-Men: The Animated Series (1992–1997) produced by Marvel Studios Animation.

Kyoto Yard Sale

14,483 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Ask anyone who’s taken a course in Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) what a solution to an ODE represents geometrically, and most of them won’t have a clean answer. When I first took ordinary differential equations, the pattern was always the same. Early on it turns into a speedrun of methods: separation of variables, integrating factors, variation of parameters, Bernoulli, exact equations. Then pretty quickly the course slides into hammer-picking. Spot the form, apply the recipe, move on. Too mechanical! And the real problem is what you don’t walk away with. You leave with a toolkit, but without a feel for what a differential equation even is, especially geometrically. That matters because in real modeling the equations you meet are rarely nice enough to reward memorised recipes. So you get trained to solve toy forms, while the actual subject stays blurry. The behavior. The flow. The shape of solutions. It wasn't until I watched the first lecture of Professor Arthur Mattuck that I realized I didn’t actually know what a solution to a differential equation represents geometrically. His point is almost embarrassingly simple. A first-order ODE is a slope field, and a solution is a curve that stays tangent to that field everywhere. The math breakdown: Write the ODE as dy/dx = f(x,y). At each point (x,y), attach a tiny line segment with slope f(x,y). A function y = y₁(x) is a solution exactly when its graph follows those slopes. At every x, the slope of the curve equals the slope prescribed by the field at the point on the curve. That’s the one line that ties both viewpoints together: y₁′(x) = f(x, y₁(x)). So solving the ODE and drawing an integral curve are the same statement in two languages. Once you see that, you stop obsessing over whether you can write y(x) in closed form. You start asking the questions that actually matter. Where do solutions flow. Where do they get trapped. Where do they blow up. Where does existence or uniqueness fail because the field isn’t even defined? That’s the perspective shift I wish every ODE course forces early. It’s also why I keep pairing math with animation. #DifferentialEquations #ODEs #VectorFields #AppliedMathematics #Mathematics #

Ask anyone who’s taken a course in Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) what a solution to an ODE represents geometrically, and most of them won’t have a clean answer. When I first took ordinary differential equations, the pattern was always the same. Early on it turns into a speedrun of methods: separation of variables, integrating factors, variation of parameters, Bernoulli, exact equations. Then pretty quickly the course slides into hammer-picking. Spot the form, apply the recipe, move on. Too mechanical! And the real problem is what you don’t walk away with. You leave with a toolkit, but without a feel for what a differential equation even is, especially geometrically. That matters because in real modeling the equations you meet are rarely nice enough to reward memorised recipes. So you get trained to solve toy forms, while the actual subject stays blurry. The behavior. The flow. The shape of solutions. It wasn't until I watched the first lecture of Professor Arthur Mattuck that I realized I didn’t actually know what a solution to a differential equation represents geometrically. His point is almost embarrassingly simple. A first-order ODE is a slope field, and a solution is a curve that stays tangent to that field everywhere. The math breakdown: Write the ODE as dy/dx = f(x,y). At each point (x,y), attach a tiny line segment with slope f(x,y). A function y = y₁(x) is a solution exactly when its graph follows those slopes. At every x, the slope of the curve equals the slope prescribed by the field at the point on the curve. That’s the one line that ties both viewpoints together: y₁′(x) = f(x, y₁(x)). So solving the ODE and drawing an integral curve are the same statement in two languages. Once you see that, you stop obsessing over whether you can write y(x) in closed form. You start asking the questions that actually matter. Where do solutions flow. Where do they get trapped. Where do they blow up. Where does existence or uniqueness fail because the field isn’t even defined? That’s the perspective shift I wish every ODE course forces early. It’s also why I keep pairing math with animation. #DifferentialEquations #ODEs #VectorFields #AppliedMathematics #Mathematics #

Mathelirium

40,739 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

JOE ROGAN: X IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NOW “X is the mainstream media now. That is the mainstream media. That's where most people are getting their news now.” Source: @JoeRogan

JOE ROGAN: X IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NOW “X is the mainstream media now. That is the mainstream media. That's where most people are getting their news now.” Source: @JoeRogan

Mario Nawfal

38,589,998 просмотров • 1 год назад

What Shape Does Chaos Take Before It Looks Random? Take one particle moving in the Hénon-Heiles Hamiltonian H = ½(pₓ² + pᵧ²) + ½(x² + y²) + λ(x²y - ⅓y³) Its motion is forced by Hamilton’s equations ẋ = pₓ ẏ = pᵧ ṗₓ = -x - 2λxy ṗᵧ = -y - λ(x² - y²) The saddle energy is Eₛ = 1/(6λ²) Below that energy, the particle remains trapped. But a tiny packet of nearby initial conditions stretches into filaments, folds through the potential, and begins to look almost random. However, it is not random. Hamiltonian flow preserves the hidden phase-space structure. What looks like chaos in ordinary space is still a deterministic loom of energy conserved, equations obeyed, geometry stretched without being erased. #HamiltonianMechanics #ChaosTheory #PhaseSpace #DynamicalSystems #MathematicalPhysics #NonlinearDynamics #HenonHeiles #SymplecticGeometry #ScienceAnimation

What Shape Does Chaos Take Before It Looks Random? Take one particle moving in the Hénon-Heiles Hamiltonian H = ½(pₓ² + pᵧ²) + ½(x² + y²) + λ(x²y - ⅓y³) Its motion is forced by Hamilton’s equations ẋ = pₓ ẏ = pᵧ ṗₓ = -x - 2λxy ṗᵧ = -y - λ(x² - y²) The saddle energy is Eₛ = 1/(6λ²) Below that energy, the particle remains trapped. But a tiny packet of nearby initial conditions stretches into filaments, folds through the potential, and begins to look almost random. However, it is not random. Hamiltonian flow preserves the hidden phase-space structure. What looks like chaos in ordinary space is still a deterministic loom of energy conserved, equations obeyed, geometry stretched without being erased. #HamiltonianMechanics #ChaosTheory #PhaseSpace #DynamicalSystems #MathematicalPhysics #NonlinearDynamics #HenonHeiles #SymplecticGeometry #ScienceAnimation

Mathelirium

26,893 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Quantum mechanics has a reputation for being mystical mainly because people skip the rules and jump to interpretations. In this lecture series, we’re doing the opposite. We start from the rules, follow the algebra, and let the picture be the calculation. Classical Probability Theory combines alternatives by adding their probabilities. Quantum Theory combines them one step earlier…add complex amplitudes first, then square at the end. That swap in order is everything. Expand |a₁ + a₂|² and you don’t just get |a₁|² + |a₂|²…you get a cross-term, 2 Re(a₁ a₂*). Its sign is set by phase, so the same two contributions can reinforce or cancel. Interference is just the algebra of squaring a sum. In the 3D render, the surface height is proportional to |a(x)| (so peaks become bright bands after squaring), while the surface skin is colored by the local phase arg(a(x)). As the phase knob φ(t) is swept on path 2, the cross-term oscillates, and you literally watch the interference ridges slide across the screen. We model a detector screen with coordinates x in R² (think x = (x,y)). A quantum state assigns a complex amplitude a(x). The rule for outcomes is p(x) = |a(x)|² Now the key situation: two coherent alternatives contribute to the same outcome x. Let their amplitudes be a₁(x) and a₂(x). Quantum says a(x) = a₁(x) + a₂(x) So the probability density becomes p(x) = |a₁(x) + a₂(x)|² Expand it (this is the whole episode): p(x) = (a₁ + a₂)(a₁* + a₂*) = |a₁|² + |a₂|² + a₁ a₂* + a₁* a₂ = |a₁|² + |a₂|² + 2 Re(a₁ a₂*) That last term is the interference term. It can be positive or negative. To see phase explicitly, write each contribution in polar form: a₁(x) = r₁(x) exp(i θ₁(x)) a₂(x) = r₂(x) exp(i θ₂(x)) Then a₁ a₂* = r₁ r₂ exp(i(θ₁ − θ₂)) So the cross-term is 2 Re(a₁ a₂*) = 2 r₁ r₂ cos(θ₁(x) − θ₂(x)) That’s the fringe engine: p(x) = r₁² + r₂² + 2 r₁ r₂ cos(Δθ(x)) Now the phase knob we animate: Add a controllable phase shift φ to path 2: a₂(x) → a₂(x) exp(i φ) Then Δθ(x) → Δθ(x) − φ, so p(x; φ) = r₁² + r₂² + 2 r₁ r₂ cos(Δθ(x) − φ) As φ changes smoothly, the bright/dark pattern slides continuously. Same setup, same geometry, same magnitudes r₁,r₂, only phase changed. #QuantumMechanics #WaveInterference #ComplexAmplitudes #DoubleSlit #Physics #Mathematics

Quantum mechanics has a reputation for being mystical mainly because people skip the rules and jump to interpretations. In this lecture series, we’re doing the opposite. We start from the rules, follow the algebra, and let the picture be the calculation. Classical Probability Theory combines alternatives by adding their probabilities. Quantum Theory combines them one step earlier…add complex amplitudes first, then square at the end. That swap in order is everything. Expand |a₁ + a₂|² and you don’t just get |a₁|² + |a₂|²…you get a cross-term, 2 Re(a₁ a₂). Its sign is set by phase, so the same two contributions can reinforce or cancel. Interference is just the algebra of squaring a sum. In the 3D render, the surface height is proportional to |a(x)| (so peaks become bright bands after squaring), while the surface skin is colored by the local phase arg(a(x)). As the phase knob φ(t) is swept on path 2, the cross-term oscillates, and you literally watch the interference ridges slide across the screen. We model a detector screen with coordinates x in R² (think x = (x,y)). A quantum state assigns a complex amplitude a(x). The rule for outcomes is p(x) = |a(x)|² Now the key situation: two coherent alternatives contribute to the same outcome x. Let their amplitudes be a₁(x) and a₂(x). Quantum says a(x) = a₁(x) + a₂(x) So the probability density becomes p(x) = |a₁(x) + a₂(x)|² Expand it (this is the whole episode): p(x) = (a₁ + a₂)(a₁ + a₂) = |a₁|² + |a₂|² + a₁ a₂ + a₁* a₂ = |a₁|² + |a₂|² + 2 Re(a₁ a₂) That last term is the interference term. It can be positive or negative. To see phase explicitly, write each contribution in polar form: a₁(x) = r₁(x) exp(i θ₁(x)) a₂(x) = r₂(x) exp(i θ₂(x)) Then a₁ a₂ = r₁ r₂ exp(i(θ₁ − θ₂)) So the cross-term is 2 Re(a₁ a₂*) = 2 r₁ r₂ cos(θ₁(x) − θ₂(x)) That’s the fringe engine: p(x) = r₁² + r₂² + 2 r₁ r₂ cos(Δθ(x)) Now the phase knob we animate: Add a controllable phase shift φ to path 2: a₂(x) → a₂(x) exp(i φ) Then Δθ(x) → Δθ(x) − φ, so p(x; φ) = r₁² + r₂² + 2 r₁ r₂ cos(Δθ(x) − φ) As φ changes smoothly, the bright/dark pattern slides continuously. Same setup, same geometry, same magnitudes r₁,r₂, only phase changed. #QuantumMechanics #WaveInterference #ComplexAmplitudes #DoubleSlit #Physics #Mathematics

Mathelirium

81,501 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

🔠 ❌ UPSC Prelims 2026 Disputed MCQ on Polity Article 13 Explained by Dr. Siddharth Arora sir (Adv Sidharth Arora ) 🔠 MCQ. X' was addressing a seminar on the meaning of the term 'law' as provided under Article 13, Part III of the Constitution of India. X' explained that the meaning of the term 'law' in the Constitution of India was very comprehensive. It included ordinances, orders and even rules and regulations. Y pointed out that the term 'law' in Article 13 also included custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law, to which 'X' was not convinced. Based on the above, select the correct conclusion from the options given below: (a) X' is correct in the interpretation of law, including the view on non-inclusion of custom. (b) The view of 'Y' that 'law' included custom is not correct. (c) The views of both 'X' and 'Y' are correct. (d) The view of only 'Y' is correct.

🔠 ❌ UPSC Prelims 2026 Disputed MCQ on Polity Article 13 Explained by Dr. Siddharth Arora sir (Adv Sidharth Arora ) 🔠 MCQ. X' was addressing a seminar on the meaning of the term 'law' as provided under Article 13, Part III of the Constitution of India. X' explained that the meaning of the term 'law' in the Constitution of India was very comprehensive. It included ordinances, orders and even rules and regulations. Y pointed out that the term 'law' in Article 13 also included custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law, to which 'X' was not convinced. Based on the above, select the correct conclusion from the options given below: (a) X' is correct in the interpretation of law, including the view on non-inclusion of custom. (b) The view of 'Y' that 'law' included custom is not correct. (c) The views of both 'X' and 'Y' are correct. (d) The view of only 'Y' is correct.

Dr. Mrunal Patel (Ph.D.)

12,703 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

“It's just a video, why are you crying?” the video: 👇🏻🥺😭♾️🌸 📸 Z X Y #BINI

“It's just a video, why are you crying?” the video: 👇🏻🥺😭♾️🌸 📸 Z X Y #BINI

DimpleNiSheena

37,654 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Phase Space Is the Real Stage of Dynamics. So, Stop Watching the Object and Watch the State. Ordinary Space tells you where something is. Phase Space tells you what state it is in. Position alone is not enough because you also need the variable that tells you where the system is trying to go. In the animation, the left panel shows the particle moving in Ordinary Space, while the right panel shows the same system as a moving point in Phase Space. For one degree of freedom, the state is (x, p) and as time evolves, that state traces a trajectory t ↦ (x(t), p(t)) Instead of thinking of a differential equation as just a formula, Phase Space lets you see it as a flow on the space of states. For this lecture we use ẋ = p ṗ = x − x³ with Hamiltonian H(x,p) = 0.5 p² + 0.25 x⁴ − 0.5 x² #PhaseSpace #DynamicalSystems #NonlinearDynamics #HamiltonianMechanics #Mathematics

Phase Space Is the Real Stage of Dynamics. So, Stop Watching the Object and Watch the State. Ordinary Space tells you where something is. Phase Space tells you what state it is in. Position alone is not enough because you also need the variable that tells you where the system is trying to go. In the animation, the left panel shows the particle moving in Ordinary Space, while the right panel shows the same system as a moving point in Phase Space. For one degree of freedom, the state is (x, p) and as time evolves, that state traces a trajectory t ↦ (x(t), p(t)) Instead of thinking of a differential equation as just a formula, Phase Space lets you see it as a flow on the space of states. For this lecture we use ẋ = p ṗ = x − x³ with Hamiltonian H(x,p) = 0.5 p² + 0.25 x⁴ − 0.5 x² #PhaseSpace #DynamicalSystems #NonlinearDynamics #HamiltonianMechanics #Mathematics

Mathelirium

30,340 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

When I was in high school, I didn't realize difference of two squares literally meant "What's the difference between these two squares?" Here's how we can visually show why x²-y²=(x-y)(x+y).

When I was in high school, I didn't realize difference of two squares literally meant "What's the difference between these two squares?" Here's how we can visually show why x²-y²=(x-y)(x+y).

Howie Hua

347,258 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Gil Noble gives an insightful explanation of why many people in the Black community were initially unsettled and intimidated by Malcolm X

Gil Noble gives an insightful explanation of why many people in the Black community were initially unsettled and intimidated by Malcolm X

Kentah Gwanjez

13,534 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

There's a pattern here: earlier in the week, AlboMP doubled the fines against Big Tech. I can't help thinking that the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, are staging a personal attack on Elon Musk, using the Bondi attack as a shield to attack X. “We fought hard against X in terms of not allowing that postmortem Bondi content,” Ms Inman Grant said. Inman Grant is always whinging about X. Maybe it's something to do with her past.🤔 X is the world's finest free speech platform. It's abundantly clear that Albo and Inman Grant struggle with free speech.

There's a pattern here: earlier in the week, AlboMP doubled the fines against Big Tech. I can't help thinking that the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, are staging a personal attack on Elon Musk, using the Bondi attack as a shield to attack X. “We fought hard against X in terms of not allowing that postmortem Bondi content,” Ms Inman Grant said. Inman Grant is always whinging about X. Maybe it's something to do with her past.🤔 X is the world's finest free speech platform. It's abundantly clear that Albo and Inman Grant struggle with free speech.

Timjbo 🇦🇺

31,739 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🇺🇸 JOE ROGAN: X IS THE NEWS SOURCE OF THE WORLD “That's what's interesting about social media. Social media right now—there's this giant resistance to the idea that X is the new source of the world. But it is the mainstream. It’s the new source of the world.” Source: Joe Rogan

🇺🇸 JOE ROGAN: X IS THE NEWS SOURCE OF THE WORLD “That's what's interesting about social media. Social media right now—there's this giant resistance to the idea that X is the new source of the world. But it is the mainstream. It’s the new source of the world.” Source: Joe Rogan

Mario Nawfal

46,026 просмотров • 1 год назад

LINDA YACCARINO: 90% OF ADVERTISERS ARE BACK ON X "X is seeing growth everywhere. 90% of advertisers have returned, driven by three pillars: safety, product innovation, and the uniqueness of X. Community Notes and new marketing tools rolled out post-acquisition are delivering massive success. There’s simply no substitute for X." Source: Linda Yaccarino Business

LINDA YACCARINO: 90% OF ADVERTISERS ARE BACK ON X "X is seeing growth everywhere. 90% of advertisers have returned, driven by three pillars: safety, product innovation, and the uniqueness of X. Community Notes and new marketing tools rolled out post-acquisition are delivering massive success. There’s simply no substitute for X." Source: Linda Yaccarino Business

Mario Nawfal

2,491,065 просмотров • 1 год назад

Ever Heard of a Metric in Differential Geometry? How About a Geodesic? These two ideas are central to how Mathematics and Physics describe Spacetime. A metric is how a surface measures distance and angle. A geodesic is the path that counts as "straight" after that measuring rule is chosen. Once the metric changes from point to point, straightness is no longer something you judge by eye. On a curved surface, the shortest paths are geodesics. They are chosen by the metric. Take a surface written as r(x,y) = (x, y, f(x,y)) Its metric is gᵢⱼ = ∂ᵢr · ∂ⱼr A geodesic q(t) = (x(t), y(t)) obeys q̈ᵏ + Γᵏᵢⱼ q̇ᶦq̇ʲ = 0 where Γᵏᵢⱼ are the Christoffel symbols of the surface metric. Launch many almost-parallel paths. At the start, they look like a clean beam until curvature takes over. Some paths focus, others separate and some slide around ridges. The surface is essentially the rulebook for motion. The shortest path is local. The geometry remembers everything. #DifferentialGeometry #Geodesics #RiemannianGeometry #MathematicalPhysics #Curvature #TensorCalculus #AppliedMathematics #Geometry #ScienceAnimation

Ever Heard of a Metric in Differential Geometry? How About a Geodesic? These two ideas are central to how Mathematics and Physics describe Spacetime. A metric is how a surface measures distance and angle. A geodesic is the path that counts as "straight" after that measuring rule is chosen. Once the metric changes from point to point, straightness is no longer something you judge by eye. On a curved surface, the shortest paths are geodesics. They are chosen by the metric. Take a surface written as r(x,y) = (x, y, f(x,y)) Its metric is gᵢⱼ = ∂ᵢr · ∂ⱼr A geodesic q(t) = (x(t), y(t)) obeys q̈ᵏ + Γᵏᵢⱼ q̇ᶦq̇ʲ = 0 where Γᵏᵢⱼ are the Christoffel symbols of the surface metric. Launch many almost-parallel paths. At the start, they look like a clean beam until curvature takes over. Some paths focus, others separate and some slide around ridges. The surface is essentially the rulebook for motion. The shortest path is local. The geometry remembers everything. #DifferentialGeometry #Geodesics #RiemannianGeometry #MathematicalPhysics #Curvature #TensorCalculus #AppliedMathematics #Geometry #ScienceAnimation

Mathelirium

22,170 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

When I first took ordinary differential equations, the pattern was always the same. Week 1 turns into a speedrun of methods: separation of variables, integrating factors, variation of parameters, Bernoulli, exact equations… and by Week 2 or 3 the course has quietly degenerated into hammer-picking. Spot the form, apply the recipe, move on. Mechanical! Fuuuuck!😫😫😫😫 The problem is what you don’t walk away with. You leave with a toolkit, but without a feel for what a differential equation even is, especially geometrically. And that’s a big deal, because in real modeling the equations you meet are rarely nice enough to reward memorized recipes. So you end up trained to solve toy forms, while the actual subject...the behavior, the flow, the shape of solutions stays blurry. This is why I’m biased toward the old-timers. Their old-school way of doing things always surprises me:...they’ll spend time on one idea until it sticks, instead of sprinting through a syllabus checklist. One lecture from them and you start noticing a contrast. A lot of modern teaching feels like "finish the content,". You get marched through techniques, but you’re not left with a single thought that keeps bothering you later...the kind of thought that actually pushes you toward research-level curiosity. MIT OpenCourseWare’s Professor Arthur Mattuck did that to me in his very first ODE lecture. One lecture, and your whole relationship with dy/dx = f(x,y) changes. In this segment, Prof. Mattuck is basically saying: A first-order ODE is a slope field, and a solution is a curve that moves everywhere tangent to that field. The math breakdown Write the ODE as dy/dx = f(x,y). At each point (x,y) you attach a tiny line segment with slope f(x,y). A function y = y₁(x) is a solution exactly when its graph follows those slopes:. At every x, the slope of the curve equals the slope prescribed by the field at the point on the curve. That’s the single line that unifies both viewpoints: y₁′(x) = f(x, y₁(x)). So solving the ODE and drawing an integral curve are the same statement in two languages!👌🏻 Once you see that, you can stop obsessing over whether you can write y(x) in closed form. You can start asking the questions that matter: where do solutions flow, where do they get trapped, where do they blow up, and where does existence/uniqueness fail just because the field isn’t even defined? That’s the perspective shift I wish every ODE course forces early and it’s exactly why I keep pairing math with animation. #DifferentialEquations #ODEs #VectorFields #MathAnimation #Mathematics

When I first took ordinary differential equations, the pattern was always the same. Week 1 turns into a speedrun of methods: separation of variables, integrating factors, variation of parameters, Bernoulli, exact equations… and by Week 2 or 3 the course has quietly degenerated into hammer-picking. Spot the form, apply the recipe, move on. Mechanical! Fuuuuck!😫😫😫😫 The problem is what you don’t walk away with. You leave with a toolkit, but without a feel for what a differential equation even is, especially geometrically. And that’s a big deal, because in real modeling the equations you meet are rarely nice enough to reward memorized recipes. So you end up trained to solve toy forms, while the actual subject...the behavior, the flow, the shape of solutions stays blurry. This is why I’m biased toward the old-timers. Their old-school way of doing things always surprises me:...they’ll spend time on one idea until it sticks, instead of sprinting through a syllabus checklist. One lecture from them and you start noticing a contrast. A lot of modern teaching feels like "finish the content,". You get marched through techniques, but you’re not left with a single thought that keeps bothering you later...the kind of thought that actually pushes you toward research-level curiosity. MIT OpenCourseWare’s Professor Arthur Mattuck did that to me in his very first ODE lecture. One lecture, and your whole relationship with dy/dx = f(x,y) changes. In this segment, Prof. Mattuck is basically saying: A first-order ODE is a slope field, and a solution is a curve that moves everywhere tangent to that field. The math breakdown Write the ODE as dy/dx = f(x,y). At each point (x,y) you attach a tiny line segment with slope f(x,y). A function y = y₁(x) is a solution exactly when its graph follows those slopes:. At every x, the slope of the curve equals the slope prescribed by the field at the point on the curve. That’s the single line that unifies both viewpoints: y₁′(x) = f(x, y₁(x)). So solving the ODE and drawing an integral curve are the same statement in two languages!👌🏻 Once you see that, you can stop obsessing over whether you can write y(x) in closed form. You can start asking the questions that matter: where do solutions flow, where do they get trapped, where do they blow up, and where does existence/uniqueness fail just because the field isn’t even defined? That’s the perspective shift I wish every ODE course forces early and it’s exactly why I keep pairing math with animation. #DifferentialEquations #ODEs #VectorFields #MathAnimation #Mathematics

Mathelirium

53,338 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Hello PIB Fact Check, You've added a screenshot of Hindustan Times and a random X account to debunk the false claim. But here is a video by Govt funded DD News anchor Sudhir Chaudhary amplifying the misinformation. Why not call them out. The report was corrected by Hindustan Times, but the X post by डीडी न्यूज़ is not deleted yet.

Hello PIB Fact Check, You've added a screenshot of Hindustan Times and a random X account to debunk the false claim. But here is a video by Govt funded DD News anchor Sudhir Chaudhary amplifying the misinformation. Why not call them out. The report was corrected by Hindustan Times, but the X post by डीडी न्यूज़ is not deleted yet.

Mohammed Zubair

428,084 просмотров • 1 год назад

Member of "gang x" caught out in the open by members of "gang y".

Member of "gang x" caught out in the open by members of "gang y".

Crime In NYC

83,198 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Distribution of WEALTH can only be done after proper X-Ray of Indian society. That is why we need caste census in India- Rahul Gandhi in US

Distribution of WEALTH can only be done after proper X-Ray of Indian society. That is why we need caste census in India- Rahul Gandhi in US

Megh Updates 🚨™

490,506 просмотров • 1 год назад