Thanks for stopping by! vcubingx is a youtube channel centered around creating educational math content. I use animations to teach math intuitively, without heavy reliance on formulas and memorization.
In your example, you need to go at least mod 7, to use 6 carrier packets. When you go mod 5, zero and five are equivalent, so f(0) and f(5) are automatically the same.
@BKNeifert8 күн бұрын
Yeah, it's a little more simple than that. There's always more numbers. If there were a finite number of primes, you multiply them all up, you add one to it, it proves there's always going to be more numbers, therefore more primes. It's due to the nature of infinity. Generally, Euclid adds up the primes, 2, 3, 5, 7 you multiply them all up, you add one to it, it shows there's always going to be more numbers that are possible to count. It's probably the missing form in our modern logic, that we can't comprehend how this could be a proof anymore. And calculus has a similar proof with a missing premise. In fact, higher forms of logic function not from having the whole set of data, but by making true inferences from it, due to the patterns we find.
@martingeorgiev9999 күн бұрын
The Lagrange polynomial bit was so neat, absolutely loved it.
@nycki9311 күн бұрын
I've read about Reed Solomon before but everyone either just talks about the polynomials or just talks about the matrix algebra, this is the only explanation I've seen that elegantly bridges that gap. This should be taught in college!
@aresorum12 күн бұрын
0:04 Poor editing. Number of words per second is too high for many to read.
@FlyingHenroxx13 күн бұрын
Thank you for your work! Your videos were very helpful for understanding the evolution of transformers 👍
@terryterry165514 күн бұрын
why IPV4 for ethernet u insert 192.168.1.1 but putty, raspberry is 192.168.1.2?
@KW-1215 күн бұрын
Excellent video. Very well explained. Congrats!
@phb195515 күн бұрын
Misses the most important part of the theorem
@tomtom582116 күн бұрын
I had so many 'aha' moments in this video I lost count! I'm convinced that it is possible to learn any concept- if it's broken down into its simplistic components
@redroach40116 күн бұрын
Li(x) can be mistaken as polylog so I would wrote as li(x)
@huhnhl774017 күн бұрын
very helpful
@toth198217 күн бұрын
Is this true?: In every other resources I have only met an activation function, which is an activation function in a single neuron, so it is a R -> R function. But in order to calculate softmax, you need the vector in the y neurons (the output of the last linear calculation). So it is basically applied on a layer, not just on one value.
@isavenewspapers889021 күн бұрын
11:29 You mean s = -2n, not Re(s) = -2n.
@paulofelipe278021 күн бұрын
Wow great video!!!
@lorislaruedrummer673925 күн бұрын
I don't understand why you need to have the unicity of the derivative
@graf_paper26 күн бұрын
This account is amazing - why does it not have 100k followers yet? Such good stuff.
@forheuristiclifeksh783627 күн бұрын
1:00
@vladimirpezo373428 күн бұрын
Great video, really like how you explained it! Just a remark on the final example - using 5 as an input in a mod 5 example shouldn't be done as it is the same as using 0 as an input - so if you didn't have the luck to loose the package 0, you'd end up with only 2 points (one being the superposition of input 0 and 5 which didn't get lost) and wouldn't be able to reconstruct the rest.
@gwonchanjasonyoon808728 күн бұрын
From 3b1b!
@thatrobloxguy28 күн бұрын
Willans formula?
@PraveenKumar-fz6uk29 күн бұрын
Its substantial derivative of velocity ( Du/Dt ) not du/dt
@vinidugeevaratne6008Ай бұрын
this is the most beautiful thing I've seen in math
@nihalpushkar31415Ай бұрын
Wow your name is so create ViVek Verma = v^3 [I hope i guessed it right].
@shawnuskАй бұрын
讲得太好了，好详细好生动！感谢老师
@gpowerpАй бұрын
Very simple and excellent explanation. Thanks for posting.
@Gordy-io8sbАй бұрын
Would the sextillion dollar equation be some sort of conjunction/unification of the Navier-Stokes & Black-Scholes, along with some other equations?
@user-yz6kb3dh8fАй бұрын
cann Someone explain to me why is between 1 and 0 «
@WalterUnglaubАй бұрын
7:50 Just a tiny nitpick, but the left dots in your graph should be open circles, no? (otherwise you have a one-to-many function)
@alexhooper27Ай бұрын
Small thing at 6:12. If p is prime, then it forms a field. Otherwise it’s just a ring.
@lightinrhythm8548Ай бұрын
Insane 🎉🎉,,,,more strong visualisation videos
@comeycallate9959Ай бұрын
Yeah, but you didn't tell us how exactly they know those were the packets that were lost, because you say "let's assume", but what if we don't assume? And what if instead of losing, the data is modified? how do you know that packet was modified, because you said that is used on qr and barcode. where a single white pixels group could be shaded by a spot or a black pixels group could be over lightened
@sebastiangudino9377Ай бұрын
Im astonished at how good your explainations were, and how bad that other dude's were omg Like: "Ah, yes, to derive this equation we are going go define the equation in terms of q-hat, and then use Leibniz rule, if you dont know that go watch a tutorial" My sweet brother, why did you think i came here looking for???
@aurelia8028Ай бұрын
As someone who has taken a course in continuum physics people have no idea just how much this video leaves out. Ignoring how much mathematical foundation behind the equations, this video leaves out, more importantly the navier-stokes equations aren't just for fluids. They also give rise to the wave equation and can even be used to explain earthquakes.
@MrGustavierАй бұрын
Am I completely lost ? At 7:00 you say : _"consider trying to calculate the expected value of some probabilistic event if we're dealing with a probability distribution p of x like this normal distribution the expected value is just an integral from negative infinity to positive infinity of the distribution"_ But this is incorrect right ? Integrating the probability distribution (probability density for continuous variable) will simply give you 1 right ? This is one of Kolmogorov's probability axiom isn't it ? That the sum of the probabilities of all possible outcome in Ω be 1 ? In order to get the expected value, we need a weighted average, which means the integral of the value of the random variable, weighted by its probability.
@ThbopCoderАй бұрын
Thank you so much for the visual explanation. Seeing all the equations on wikipedia didn't help much but this did!
@STONECOLDET944Ай бұрын
If we discover that spacetime is quantised, what bearing does that have on the foundations of mathematics ?
@aimbotter_Ай бұрын
can you please explain why you specifically took a teardrop shape and not a circle with centre origin for the line integral?
@TheFakeMackieАй бұрын
The mario music gave big rolling rock PU vibes.
@gravmathАй бұрын
I believe your expected value E[x] should be \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} x P(x) dx (see around 7:12)
@FabioDBB2 ай бұрын
Truly amazing explanation, thx!
@msaaladl78692 ай бұрын
Thanks
@michaelgonzalez90582 ай бұрын
Because 4 =1
@taxicabnumber17292 ай бұрын
I think I discovered a pattern to the Primes. None of them are divisible. I checked this up to 101 and it seems to be true, still working on a proof.
@xsup_81372 ай бұрын
THANK YOU 🤕😭😭😭😭
@samwebber31092 ай бұрын
id be curious to learn how a circle plays into that appearance of pi
@dann_y53192 ай бұрын
9:13 grid
@cyanurecyanures1302 ай бұрын
Thanks a lot for the video ! Now I understood that Trigrams model just take into acount the last three words.
Пікірлер
7:30 can we get much higher
In your example, you need to go at least mod 7, to use 6 carrier packets. When you go mod 5, zero and five are equivalent, so f(0) and f(5) are automatically the same.
Yeah, it's a little more simple than that. There's always more numbers. If there were a finite number of primes, you multiply them all up, you add one to it, it proves there's always going to be more numbers, therefore more primes. It's due to the nature of infinity. Generally, Euclid adds up the primes, 2, 3, 5, 7 you multiply them all up, you add one to it, it shows there's always going to be more numbers that are possible to count. It's probably the missing form in our modern logic, that we can't comprehend how this could be a proof anymore. And calculus has a similar proof with a missing premise. In fact, higher forms of logic function not from having the whole set of data, but by making true inferences from it, due to the patterns we find.
The Lagrange polynomial bit was so neat, absolutely loved it.
I've read about Reed Solomon before but everyone either just talks about the polynomials or just talks about the matrix algebra, this is the only explanation I've seen that elegantly bridges that gap. This should be taught in college!
0:04 Poor editing. Number of words per second is too high for many to read.
Thank you for your work! Your videos were very helpful for understanding the evolution of transformers 👍
why IPV4 for ethernet u insert 192.168.1.1 but putty, raspberry is 192.168.1.2?
Excellent video. Very well explained. Congrats!
Misses the most important part of the theorem
I had so many 'aha' moments in this video I lost count! I'm convinced that it is possible to learn any concept- if it's broken down into its simplistic components
Li(x) can be mistaken as polylog so I would wrote as li(x)
very helpful
Is this true?: In every other resources I have only met an activation function, which is an activation function in a single neuron, so it is a R -> R function. But in order to calculate softmax, you need the vector in the y neurons (the output of the last linear calculation). So it is basically applied on a layer, not just on one value.
11:29 You mean s = -2n, not Re(s) = -2n.
Wow great video!!!
I don't understand why you need to have the unicity of the derivative
This account is amazing - why does it not have 100k followers yet? Such good stuff.
1:00
Great video, really like how you explained it! Just a remark on the final example - using 5 as an input in a mod 5 example shouldn't be done as it is the same as using 0 as an input - so if you didn't have the luck to loose the package 0, you'd end up with only 2 points (one being the superposition of input 0 and 5 which didn't get lost) and wouldn't be able to reconstruct the rest.
From 3b1b!
Willans formula?
Its substantial derivative of velocity ( Du/Dt ) not du/dt
this is the most beautiful thing I've seen in math
Wow your name is so create ViVek Verma = v^3 [I hope i guessed it right].
讲得太好了，好详细好生动！感谢老师
Very simple and excellent explanation. Thanks for posting.
Would the sextillion dollar equation be some sort of conjunction/unification of the Navier-Stokes & Black-Scholes, along with some other equations?
cann Someone explain to me why is between 1 and 0 «
7:50 Just a tiny nitpick, but the left dots in your graph should be open circles, no? (otherwise you have a one-to-many function)
Small thing at 6:12. If p is prime, then it forms a field. Otherwise it’s just a ring.
Insane 🎉🎉,,,,more strong visualisation videos
Yeah, but you didn't tell us how exactly they know those were the packets that were lost, because you say "let's assume", but what if we don't assume? And what if instead of losing, the data is modified? how do you know that packet was modified, because you said that is used on qr and barcode. where a single white pixels group could be shaded by a spot or a black pixels group could be over lightened
Im astonished at how good your explainations were, and how bad that other dude's were omg Like: "Ah, yes, to derive this equation we are going go define the equation in terms of q-hat, and then use Leibniz rule, if you dont know that go watch a tutorial" My sweet brother, why did you think i came here looking for???
As someone who has taken a course in continuum physics people have no idea just how much this video leaves out. Ignoring how much mathematical foundation behind the equations, this video leaves out, more importantly the navier-stokes equations aren't just for fluids. They also give rise to the wave equation and can even be used to explain earthquakes.
Am I completely lost ? At 7:00 you say : _"consider trying to calculate the expected value of some probabilistic event if we're dealing with a probability distribution p of x like this normal distribution the expected value is just an integral from negative infinity to positive infinity of the distribution"_ But this is incorrect right ? Integrating the probability distribution (probability density for continuous variable) will simply give you 1 right ? This is one of Kolmogorov's probability axiom isn't it ? That the sum of the probabilities of all possible outcome in Ω be 1 ? In order to get the expected value, we need a weighted average, which means the integral of the value of the random variable, weighted by its probability.
Thank you so much for the visual explanation. Seeing all the equations on wikipedia didn't help much but this did!
If we discover that spacetime is quantised, what bearing does that have on the foundations of mathematics ?
can you please explain why you specifically took a teardrop shape and not a circle with centre origin for the line integral?
The mario music gave big rolling rock PU vibes.
I believe your expected value E[x] should be \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} x P(x) dx (see around 7:12)
Truly amazing explanation, thx!
Thanks
Because 4 =1
I think I discovered a pattern to the Primes. None of them are divisible. I checked this up to 101 and it seems to be true, still working on a proof.
THANK YOU 🤕😭😭😭😭
id be curious to learn how a circle plays into that appearance of pi
9:13 grid
Thanks a lot for the video ! Now I understood that Trigrams model just take into acount the last three words.
Ive found the pattern. No joke.