Відео

No... You are exactly correct 💯 Mistake meri hai... Mujhe thoda aur clarify Krna chahiye tha apne thoughts ko Actually hm ye bolte hain ki "x tends to 0" infinite hota hai but "x=0" ko bolne se bachte hain. Jabki 0 se upar koi v value ho uski ek fixed value aa sakti hai agar hm calculate Krna chahe to, chahe aap kitna v chhota value le lo, jab tk wo zero ni hua h apke pas ye ummid hai ki haan... koi number to hai... "x tends to 0" ka simple meaning hai ki ye value just zero hone wali hai but zero ni hai. Ye infinitely small value hai but apko ummid de rahi h ki koi number hai. But exactly zero pr mathematical model fail kr jati hai isliye use undefined keh dete hain. Jab 0.999999999.... = 1 likhte hain tb to koi flaw nazar ni ata but yha tends to zero ko infite bol rhe h and equals to zero bolne m nani yaad aa jati h hamari 😂 Ye flaw mathematics ki ni hai, jo mathematical foundation hmne create kiya hai uski hai. Galati hmari hai. Mera prayas yahi hai ki infinity k concept ko thoda aur refine kru and 1/0 ka sahi darza use dilau jo wo mathematics m mean krta hai. Usse hme darne k zarurat nahi hai. Infinity ka concept hi ulta h sabke liye Pta ni kis pariyon ki duniya m ji rhe h aajkal mathematicians. Ab ye mere opinions hain jo ki filhal bhut personal hain, m inko lekr bhut hi jyada rigid ni hu kyunki meri research complete ni hui h. But av tk to sahi chal rha h filhal. To m galat v ho sakta hu. Jo v ho, try to kr hi sakta hu atleast 🙂

You are absolutely right! This formula only applies to hinges. It's good you pointed out this. I discussed it here in the case of theta=0. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you connect them with the hinges or not because even after separating them with a distance, the reflection property remains as it is. So, I am really glad you pointed this out, but here it's just an extension. The formula is not meant for it but there is no flaw in extending it like this at 0°. If you go according to this, then at this condition the object should be thin like a plane object (perfect 2D object) which in real life is not possible. So either you have to build a perfect 2D object or you can remove the hinge (only for this condition) and separate the mirror according to the dimension of the object, maintaining the same property as before. The only thing we have to consider here for this extension is that the hinge is at infinity and the mirror has infinite aperture.

@vakrahara So, parallel lines meet at infinity in ordinary Euclidean space?? 🙄.. I mean you are talking about reality, that is R³.

No, they don't. Parallel lines stay at a fixed distance apart forever in Euclidean Geometry. And it's the reality of course. You are correct here and I appreciate it 🙂 But with the hinge and an object between them is more like a projective geometry not a Euclidean one. If you consider it like a projective geometry because the configuration of mirrors is like that and also we cannot have a perfect 2D object in reality, then it becomes more easy to grasp and the hinges would appear to be at infinity. However, in reality infinity doesn't mean the same. It's all about the scale... Sun's rays are not parallel but we consider it for our small purposes. Why? It's for the same reason...

@@vakrahara Projective Geometry?? .. can you give the source or proof where it links projective geometry to that formula? It'll help me a lot. And yes Sun rays are not parallel but, since it's far far away, the rays make an angle which tends to zero, between them. In this context also, if θ tends to 0, (360/|θ|)-1 gives us infinity, which is also an accurate result. But, this is not a perfect parallel case. So, how can we extend this formula to the perfect parallel case when θ=0. Then, we need to dig into the derivation of the formula, so that we can know where it is applicable and where it is not. But, if you give that projective geometry part with proof, then I'll have no more confusion 👍

@@photostudy8035 you are sticked to the formula itself and I am talking about extending it. It's correct that we cannot build such mirrors with infinite apertures. Let me ask you something, what other mathematical model or explanation do you have to support this observation? Euclidean geometry is not applicable here because of the configuration of the mirrors and also because of the object between them. Technically, theta=0 (complete zero) is not possible here. And this is why you are saying that this formula is not meant for that. And you are absolutely right 👍🏻 I have no objections in it. I too consider this. But, I imagined what if we can extend this formula to this situation? Does it hold good or not? The only way to extend it here is by taking the help of projective geometry. There might exist other ways but I am not aware of it as of now. I came up with this on my own. If you know anything to explain this I too want to have that explanation. This projective geometry is cyclical in nature and forms a closed loop but only when you reach infinity which is weird in itself to think about. 😂 I saw, the number of images goes on increasing as it approaches zero. So, I thought of extending it by using this geometry and it matches my current research. I might be completely wrong, I am not too rigid about my claims but isn't it begging to complete the mathematical structure? We say approaches to zero but afraid to say "equals to 0" even after the mathematics is begging to complete him. My attempt is to provide a mathematical model to give 1/0 a meaning which it currently lags. Even to 0/0, 0°, and many other contradictory forms. This approach was initiated by Aryabhatta, Brahmagupta and Bhaskaracharya and I took it too. I might fail in future but I don't want to quit without giving it a try. 🙂 If I succeed, it will help others and if I fail, I will at least gain some more experience in it.

Thank you ❤️

Yes I highly appreciate this thought and in fact I know this well and even I have uploaded a video in this before on this same concept that why 1/0 is undefined but according to my new research and finding, mathematically and practically it should be infinity... And I have mentioned this in my research paper as well... I will upload a video on the same in future Thank you so much you watched this video and commented on it ❤️❤️

I am really grateful to hear this... ❤️🙏 Thank you

Aap cross check kr lijiye, mujhe aapatti ni hai isse... Yadi m ye keh sakta hu to galati hone pr kshama v mang sakta hu 🙂

Can we have a conversation?

@@vakrahara yes, we can connect on call

DM me at @Vk_Arms on Instagram please... I will be waiting for your response 🙂

Thank you so much... ❤️😅

Yaar blindly is aadmi ka believe mat Karo, khud ka brain ka istemaal karo aur thoda research karo. Juth bol raha hai banda

I can definitely try to explain to you. Just wait for the next video... It's not about the 2nd dimension. And whatever I will say it will seem purely logical to you and then you can have a clear understanding of what complex numbers mean in real life. They are definitely not imaginary, they are real but with a different perspective.

Absolutely

It means a lot to me ❤️🙂

I am a teacher and they are not toddlers 😅 छितरना and बिखरना use kr lete... English hi kya zaruri hai bhai jab bachhe ko hi smjhana hai to.

@vakrahara I personally don't know Hindi that much And may be You are right he should have explained scattering

I really welcome your thoughts here. May be I am wrong and you are right. It's not about whether I am right or not. It's about understanding... I completely agree with you that there must be a unified science explaining all these things and we all are working for it. Uncertainty principle, double slit experiments are well established and tested many times. Maybe there is something happening that we are not aware of but the question is... Does anyone have this answer? We all are in search of it... If you know how these things work you are most welcome to explain them. Just believing something and proving something is an entirely different thing. I respect your thoughts because I think the same, but currently we have no choice but to accept what we currently have. Science works in this way only. Very few people are born with this type of thinking and idea. Congratulations 🎉 You are one of those thinkers. I really think you have a good opportunity 🙂 You thought of something other than the crowd. Now, chase that thought and make it a reality. Thank you so much for commenting. I am happy to read the comments of yours. ❤️❤️❤️

Scientist??? It's maths...

Hmm... Namste, Maine apne research paper m number ka mtlb mention Kiya hai I will definitely show this in my next video And ye concept v detail m btaunga

No no... You didn't get me. I will explain this in my next video. You are just changing the symbols for their values. I am not saying this... It's entirely different. Try to think about it... It's different than what we think as of now

@vakrahara okay

Definately... ❤️ अरिषडवर्गान् जयतु || May you conquer your 6 inner enemies to help you achieve what you want...

Thank you so much for this compliment 😅❤️❤️

Can you tell me if you don't mind. I want to know 😅 You can mention the reference. I would like to read it myself

@vakrahara I would love to do so but I read it way back, on mobile via some reference, and I actually don't remember but if I find it, I'll surely mention the same! The story is of some king , his queen and Maa Saraswati's interaction, where Maa tells that what u dream here in this world is nothing but a reality of ur own but in some other universe ( thus, evidently implying the theory of multiverse way back) and she also tells that, how in parallel worlds same character of king portrays exactly opposite or differing nature from each of his own versions!! This story is really great and a must read!

Most welcome 🙂🙂❤️❤️

I am very much familiar with the ashtavakra Gita. And I am very much inspired by Ashtavakra. He is one of my favourites. My channel name is inspired by him. His thoughts are profound and carry a deep meaning. He said, "If someone claims that he knows Brahm, then he is lying". This idea illuminated me a lot. His way of thinking and reasoning is outstanding. Truly speaking, the word "consciousness" does not impart the exact meaning of the perception of Ashtavakra. I don't know yet 🤔 What consciousness exactly is but what I know is that consciousness according to Ashtavakra is entirely different from its english meaning.

@vakrahara how different?

Ashtavakra's views on consciousness are based on Advaita Vedanta. Consciousness in English doesn't convey this idea exactly. According to them, consciousness can be a state or condition, or it can be something due to which the body becomes aware of its surroundings. However, Ashtavakra's thought is different. He does not make a distinction. Rather he says, everything is one. There is no duality. The body is the manifestation and the consciousness itself is the ultimate cause of it. It's hard to explain like this... Don't grab my words, just feel the concept 😅

​@@vakrahara but does not ashtavakra claim the in-existence of the universe or does claim the whole manifestation to be mere illusion?And do you think each word said by ashtavakra is the eternal truth or it's just like one philosopher giving his philosophy?

@DhananjoyMukhopadhyay dude... Philosophy in india is not what you think. Here the philosophy has a high significance because it is based on robust reasoning and different types of pramanas(evidences). We call it darshana. You can categorize it under philosophy if you want to but this is more than that. I am not saying he is absolutely right but what he gave is one of the foundations that Veda teaches us. The whole Upanishads talk about it. Erwin Schrodinger was also influenced by the thoughts of Advaita Vedanta because it aligns with his theories. It's not just a philosophy... I can't tell him just a philosopher... He is the seeker like others. I have a much greater respect for him. I don't know the truth yet, but his thoughts and reasoning did surpass many and it is still relevant to make someone really curious...

Hmm... It might be true I would say. But I suspect because he said, mesopotamian and greek mathematics. And this is why I made this thought. However, If he didn't mean it then it's a mistake from my side. And I apologize for that...

Thank you so much ❤️

It depends actually 🤔 I have hunger for many things and I use a lot of resources, youtube is one of them but I mostly rely on original works of someone. And it really depends on many factors like what is your current level of understanding, your language skills, your interest and background. What you want to study brother... 🙂 I am curious to know...

Hmm... 🤔 Ho sakta hai... Kyunki sabki vichardhara ek ni hoti to aisa jaruri nahi ki hm dono ki sehmati bane. Pr apne yeh video dekha uske liye dhanyawaad ❤️

bhai prove him wrong mathematically , you don't even know half M of mathematics .

Baat bakwaas nhi hai, bas inka alpgyaan hai, Bharat me log apne ande se bahar nahi nikalna chahate. Ramanujan sir ne bas rule toda Jo ki Newton ne bhi kiya thA MATHS ME HI, Jo uske kaam aaya. Every one should read ramanujan sir's whole real paper and it's criticism. Tab hi koi jaan sakte hain ki ramanujan sir kyon galat the aur tab bhi unki iss value ka use kuch not proven physics me kyon kiya jaata hai, Ek reason bhai ne hi bataya hai isliye inka video bakwaas nhi hai. Bas alpgyaan se banaya gaya hai. ADHURAGYAN ZAANLEWA HOTA HAI.😅

​@@AgyatTatvaunderstand maths REALLY 😅

I totally understand your feelings and emotions. I appreciate it, at least you found my video and commented on it. I am not a maths genius and still learning. Maybe, you are correct and I am not denying it. I just said, it's not a normal summation. The whole mathematical community has appreciated Ramanujan for this. NMS sir viewed this from a different approach for which he is not wrong actually because he didn't know about it. However, I didn't mean to hurt the feelings of anyone. If I did, I am sorry... I put things on the basis of knowledge I gained and I completely agree with you that I don't have complete knowledge of mathematics. In fact no one has... I put my perspective here... 🙂 Thank you for watching this video and thank you for commenting... I learnt a lot from you

My true education is from a Gurukulam where no one goes nowadays... 😅 However, the highest degree I can talk about is: I have studied BTech for 2 years in NSEC and I did BA in history (hon)

@vakrahara Aap history se BA kiye ho to aapko maths ke baare me kaise pata wo bhi ramanujan summation jo ki kaafi abstract topic h

@shreyanshkumar7118 sirf mathematics hi ni brother, mujhe game development, core java ye sab v ati hai. Aur bhi bhut kuch hai... Maine to bola n maine apni shiksha us Gurukulam se li hai jha aajkal koi ni jate 😅 Lambi story hai... 😅😅 Filhal mai itna hi bta sakta hu... Thank you so much for showing your interest towards me. I am blessed to have you... ❤️

​@@vakrahara interesting... U can make a video about urself. It would be really amazing.

Surely I would... ❤️🙂

zoo-tube 😂😂

Thank you so much for this feedback. It means a lot and is motivating for me. ❤️❤️❤️

😂😂😂 Thank you so much for this, I didn't expect anything like that. By the way, what I think about your question is here: For me or anything else, whether it is living or non-living, there has to be a truth. That truth is God for me. 😂 Now this is the most fundamental and basic definition that I can provide you here. But the depth of this is huge. The more I think about it, the more vast it becomes. Look, the entire debate over the existence of the god came into picture due to our consciousness. If it didn't exist, we don't have this question in reality. So, God and consciousness are the topics explained by many and regressed by many. 😂 However, 🤔 Let us consider something... Since this whole universe is the main culprit for this question ❓ There is one question that no one can argue about? "Why universe exists?" What if I ask you, Do you think that this universe is the effect of something? If you say yes, then there must be a cause. The primordial cause of existence. That is what I say God. If you say no, then this universe is self-sustained and pre-existing. So the whole universe is God in itself (from my perspective) In both conditions... Whether it was or not, there is something due to which we exist and that's the reality of course. For me, religion is a vague concept. I do not bind myself in religion where a group of people has some ideologies and others follow it. That is purely nonsense. Neither I am an atheist. And I gave you the reason why I can't be an atheist. It is not my belief but what I said is the truth. And that truth can't be a belief. So I am not a believer but a seeker of that truth. I don't know what it is and why it is, and this is the cause of my seeking. I don't know if you are able to understand my point. I am a proud sanatani who follows dharma. Dharma is not religious but is directly connected with that truth that we all are seeking. I call it brahm, the Veda call it brahm, the Upanishads call it brahm, entire scriptures call it brahm. 🙂‍↔️ When, I was young I didn't like samskritam and now when I started reading it and dived deep into the Veda and Upanishads, I am really amazed by the thoughts that our ancestors had. It opened an entirely different universe of reasoning and logical thinking that I never experienced before. I bow down to my guru, who really taught me how to seek it. The way we are taught about these books is wrong, but the reason for teaching it like that is absolutely necessary. I cannot explain it here entirely but the very purpose of Veda itself is to seek that truth. Devata in Veda is not God, it's a mistranslated version to justify one's supremacy and make Hindus ashamed of their own culture. For us, the gods are not that a religious person thinks about. Everything is about dharma and everything is due to this dharma itself. Dharma is not a religion. I am getting goosebumps right now while explaining it to you. The concept of dharma is not just for us but for everything that exists in this universe. The whole universe is held by the dharma itself and it is the brahm that gives existence to dharma. Look brother, even those rishis who transmitted Veda were unknown of that truth but still they says, "Everyone should seek that truth and should seek always, the one who doesn't seek or is ignorant of his own existence is nothing but a dead". I don't know if I have successfully explained my thoughts to you or not, but the thing that is inside my brain is so huge that I cannot explain it in a few statements. Thank you so much for reading my thoughts ❤️😅 I apologise to my guru if I said something wrong... 🙏

First of all, Thanks for giving your time! I would like to say that not only consciousness, but the ability to think and question is what truly made the concept of god to emerge. I mean animals and plants too have consciousness, but there sole purpose is survival by adapting as per environment and nature demand. The ability to think made humans question every aspect of nature and that's how the concept of God came into emergence, atleast that is how I believe it. Because humans lived in societies, these thoughts were shared among themselves. These thoughts were 'the stories' of how the thing they see came into existence. I do not have to mention it, but there are very large differences in all religions about existence of different things in nature. We are debating on why this universe exists whereas in that time shape of earth, cause of earthquake etc. were maybe the debates. Which ofcourse were answered by the stories which some of them fabricated and everybody believed. Today we know the true cause of these things which is again thanks to the same thinking ability of humans. Why universe exists?, How really was it created or it was pre existing ?, Is there any other planet where life exists too?, What consciousness actually is ?etc.These questions are un-answerable, or they may be answered by humans in future. But then again, a new question will come up. Un-answerable questions should not be the basis to prove something, If a concept literally answers something, only then it should be accepted. If it doesn't, we should find its flaw and improve the concept. These concepts are called theories in science and if it fails, its failure is accepted. But in case of relegion, one should have 'faith' his believes, you cannot question it.

​@@vakrahara I feel like, I can't really grasp the meaning of "Dharma" as you perceive it. You declined Dharma's connection with God, Does Dharma means doing good things, something related with that concept of Karma ig?

@anmolsingh7272 Dharma is not about doing good things. If I ask you... 🤔 What is good and bad? Who decides it? Who makes this distinction between good and bad? These terms are of no use for God (for others but for me it's brahm). A normal person might consider killing someone as bad but a terrorist can consider the same thing as good. So, good and bad are based on the person who is doing something or tends to do something. Good and bad is a very limited word. Dharma doesn't talk just about humans, it talks about the entire universe itself, whether living or not. Everything has a dharma assigned to it. The English word for it is "righteousness" and seriously 😶😅 this english word is of no match to the original meaning of dharma. Right now what I am doing is my dharma. Right now, what your smartphone is doing is its dharma. Right now, what pruthvi (earth) is doing is her dharma. Right now, what the sun is doing is his dharma. Everything is bound by the dharma and dharma is due to that brahm. Dharma has a very deep meaning that the entire Mahabharata was written on it to convey the actual meaning. Some can understand it in hours, some can understand it in days, some can understand it in months and years, and some cannot understand it in his entire life. 😅

What you see is different and what I see is different for the same word. That is what I felt till now. Purushashuktam in my scripture talks about this. The exact meaning of consciousness, why it exists. The only thing I can tell you is, if you really want to understand something... Don't close the doors of wisdom. Keep it open, someone might come and enlighten you with the context that you need. Erwin Schrodinger was highly influenced by Upanishads, and his thoughts were highly aligned with the Advaita philosophy. He was mesmerized reading them. I don't know what he gained from it and why he read it? Why did Oppenheimer feel a deep connection to bhagawad geeta. Why Neils Bohr was influenced by these scriptures. I am not saying, that these scriptures have science and they extracted it. It's not the case... But, there might be some ideas and thoughts that you can take as a foundation to work further in the search of that ultimate truth, the param brahm. Rationality is not about denying something, it's about understanding and thinking, what can lead us to that solution correctly. The only most rational thing I have seen existed in this world is Veda itself. When you read it, you will think the same. But, only when you are logical enough to understand the meanings of it. Don't read like the others. Connect to your roots if you are an indian and read those texts. I have already given a lot of time. I did what I must... (It was my dharma by the way 😅😉) I must focus on something else that is more important right now. Thank you so much for listening to me. If you want my website has some blogs that I have written there. Read them if you want to. Thank you again... ❤️❤️❤️❤️

I appreciate your thinking 🙂 Not everyone thinks the same way. For someone it means something and for someone it's not. Whatever the case, I acknowledge both. ❤️ I am neither religious nor an atheist. I follow dharma... I have no contradictions with your words. Your words are for the betterment of this humanity. I appreciate it, seriously... Whatever I do is for the betterment of the entire Earth 🌍 because this whole earth is my family. I am always eager to learn and still learning... I learned something from you too... Thank you for watching ❤️

​No I have also no issue but I felt when this gen hate Pythagoras​ for Baudhyana.. also same about Newton's Calculus.. and one thing in your video 1/0 is not अनंत... It just undefined (from basic Definition of Division). Undefined is undefined.. but infinity just a unbounded form of a bounded magnitude.. you cannot say 1/0 is अनंत. अनंत means infinity na?? If not then sorry from my side 🙏.. Radhe radhe @@vakrahara

You are absolutely correct... 1/0 is undefined in modern context. But this is undefined due to the limitation of the mathematics that we are currently using. The foundation of mathematics is not well structured. You can watch my other videos to have a clear understanding on the concept of zero and negative numbers. Especially the video titled as "soul of mathematics was murdered" When our eyes are covered with a layer of adharma, we are not able to enquire the basic existence of ourselves. We should question each and everything, we should not just accept something the way it is defined. If you can enquire, use all your potential to find the solution for it. For me the education is to learn what you don't know... ।। राधे राधे ।।

@@vakrahara you cannot say limitations.. then it's limitations of our fundamental concepts. If UNDEFINED a limitation then we have to restructure our definition of DIVISION.. a/b=c then it must satisfy b×c =a.. here 1/0 doesn't satisfy b×c=a.. Now you will tell a new number that we cannot imagine.. but again from basic properties of multiplication is Anything × 0 is 0 because it can create a group but there will no element .. then where is limitation??

Look brother... I have already tested it and it drastically reduces the abstraction of mathematics. Our very understanding of numbers is wrong. Watch my video... 😞 It's unfortunate ki hm apne hi chizon ko thik se smjh ni paye. It's not about argument, I don't want to win this argument. But just listen to me once in that video.

Hare krishna... 🦚🪈

Please read the reply on the pinned comment. I have clarified already. Thank you so much that you point out this detail. I appreciate it and acknowledge it. I will be more careful while making videos and will try to include a crystal-clear distinction between them rather just saying. Thank you... ❤️❤️❤️

@@vakrahara Your acknowledgement is appreciated It's always good to be correct and clear with own statements when you're talking to a scientific community. Unclear, incomplete and vague terms are unacceptable. And it's always better to correct ourselves.