integral of ln(x) from 0 to 1

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 18 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 413

  • @uy-ge3dm
    @uy-ge3dm 7 років тому +586

    when oon han said "we'll be using inverses" his method hit me immediately

    • @bonbonpony
      @bonbonpony 6 років тому +98

      Yeah, brilliant ideas are so obvious when you know them, and so hard to figure out when you don't :q

    • @iDoqz
      @iDoqz 4 роки тому +9

      @@bonbonpony this is a really great and underrated comment

    • @AymanSussy
      @AymanSussy 4 роки тому +1

      When I saw him talking about the area I immediately think about using inverse 🤔

    • @tystovall6574
      @tystovall6574 4 роки тому +10

      tfw you're trying to find the mass of a uniformly dense sphere using triple integrals

    • @nidhiagrawal3354
      @nidhiagrawal3354 3 роки тому

      Same

  • @wagsman9999
    @wagsman9999 5 років тому +572

    Four years of Engineering and I'm being out-mathed by a youngster. Lol. Well done.

    • @danibaba7058
      @danibaba7058 4 роки тому +8

      He ain't even a youngster he's a developed sperm ffs , he is supposed to be doing 1+2 :)))

    • @executorarktanis2323
      @executorarktanis2323 4 роки тому +18

      @@danibaba7058 someone is salty

    • @t0k4m4k7
      @t0k4m4k7 3 роки тому +5

      @@danibaba7058 Did someone take a piss on your integral?

    • @toastedsniper9248
      @toastedsniper9248 3 роки тому +3

      @@t0k4m4k7 this made me lol

    • @kepler4192
      @kepler4192 2 роки тому

      @@t0k4m4k7 rofl

  • @deeptochatterjee532
    @deeptochatterjee532 7 років тому +464

    "I wanna be a cat"
    Best line ever

    • @OonHan
      @OonHan 7 років тому +21

      Deepto Chatterjee *your comment is loved by Oon Han*

    • @bonbonpony
      @bonbonpony 6 років тому +5

      Welp, one girl wanted to be a Mermaid, and guess who's she now as an adult? :J
      She works as a Mermaid in Disneyland ;)

    • @assassin01620
      @assassin01620 5 років тому

      @@bonbonpony Are you the same Bon Bon who watched Hobo Ryan's MLP reaction?

    • @bonbonpony
      @bonbonpony 5 років тому

      @@assassin01620 Yes. Why?

    • @assassin01620
      @assassin01620 5 років тому

      @@bonbonpony didnt expect to find you on a math channel xD

  • @lorenzodigiacomo2561
    @lorenzodigiacomo2561 6 років тому +279

    Damn the second one was brilliant

    • @blackpenredpen
      @blackpenredpen  6 років тому +21

      Thanks!!

    • @lorenzodigiacomo2561
      @lorenzodigiacomo2561 6 років тому +1

      What about doing a video about the improper integral from 0 to +inf of x^n/(e^x-1) with n>=1 and natural?

    • @henriquepinto
      @henriquepinto 2 роки тому +1

      @@blackpenredpen not due to you!

  • @jaygupta1514
    @jaygupta1514 2 роки тому +47

    In case anyone was wondering, the visual intuition behind integration by parts is essentially the "flipping" observation made by Oon Han. That's why parts is particularly useful when dealing with inverse functions like arctan(x)

    • @spudhead169
      @spudhead169 2 роки тому

      Thank you, IBP always seemed like voodoo, now it makes more sense to me.

  • @Hello-fb7sp
    @Hello-fb7sp 7 років тому +836

    Damn, how did you draw that first integral symbol so neatly?

    • @NoNameAtAll2
      @NoNameAtAll2 7 років тому +96

      Mikhail Asimov
      He used crayon to make whiteboard whiter

    • @rksemwal8116
      @rksemwal8116 4 роки тому +3

      damn

    • @kevin_wb0poh
      @kevin_wb0poh 3 роки тому +2

      More like "Damn! Why didn't I think of that???"

    • @fariesz6786
      @fariesz6786 3 роки тому +3

      michael bay fixed it in post

  • @helloitsme7553
    @helloitsme7553 7 років тому +93

    Omg he is so creative to come up with that solution

  • @alanhiguera3484
    @alanhiguera3484 7 років тому +59

    another way to do it is by making a substitution x=e^u, which makes dx=e^u du. changing the bounds, you get the integral from 1 to e of ue^u du and solve using integration by parts

    • @empathycompassion6157
      @empathycompassion6157 4 роки тому +2

      Yes,im using that too,but nonetheless,both brilliant in their own way.

    • @pianoforte17xx48
      @pianoforte17xx48 3 роки тому +3

      Well you still technically used integration by parts equivalently to integrating lnx

  • @TheBlueboyRuhan
    @TheBlueboyRuhan 7 років тому +973

    Watching talented kids smarter than me makes me feel depressed

    • @DerToasti
      @DerToasti 7 років тому +41

      some people are just luckier than others.

    • @TheBlueboyRuhan
      @TheBlueboyRuhan 7 років тому +30

      DerToasti It's got nothing to do with luck/chance
      It's about nurture and (possibly) talent

    • @DerToasti
      @DerToasti 7 років тому +67

      which a little kid like that can't influence, so pure luck.

    • @AlRoderick
      @AlRoderick 7 років тому +73

      Don't be. I'm in general happy that the world has people in it that can do things I can't, I just have to hope that they use their powers for good.

    • @hypnovia
      @hypnovia 7 років тому +4

      Agreed. Pure luck.

  • @EmissaryOfSmeagol
    @EmissaryOfSmeagol 7 років тому +58

    I thought about 'flipping' or rotating functions when I took Cal 2, but my professor said that one can't just claim to 'rotate' the integral to make things easier, what one ought to do is multiply it by a rotation matrix (which is just the rigorous way of 'flipping' or 'rotating.')
    So Cal 2+ students, just use this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_(mathematics)#Two_dimensions
    You don't need to know Linear Algebra or anything, and this will let you be totally correct in your reasoning!
    When you rotate by 90 degrees, you will only be multiplying by 1, -1, or 0, and your result will look like Oon Han's!

    • @bonbonpony
      @bonbonpony 6 років тому +22

      Not necessarily. You can as well reorder the equation algebraically ;) E.g. when you have:
      y = ln(x)
      you can raise the base `e` to both sides to get:
      e^y = e^ln(x)
      and the logarithm will cancel on the right-hand side:
      e^y = x
      so now you have a function `x(y) = e^y` which you can integrate with respect to `y`:
      ʃe^y·dy
      from `-∞` to `0`, as in Oon Han's video :>

    • @EmissaryOfSmeagol
      @EmissaryOfSmeagol 6 років тому

      That's true. I originally thought of rotating only because I didn't want to integrate with respect to y, for some reason I thought that was silly and I wanted to 'fix' it so I could integrate wrt x. Particularly for integrating using the disk method, as it just made more sense for me if the disks went around the x-axis, lol.

    • @bonbonpony
      @bonbonpony 6 років тому +1

      Why? I'm integrating a different function that just happens to be the same area. It's not substitution.

  • @theSASarethebest
    @theSASarethebest 7 років тому +94

    Oon Han is a beast for his age

  • @kamamuosman
    @kamamuosman 5 років тому +48

    Dude when a saw a kid a was surprised , in his age , i was still peeing in my bed

    • @todabsolute
      @todabsolute 4 роки тому

      . . . . . .
      I'll leave it up to others

  • @gabest4
    @gabest4 7 років тому +199

    This makes me wonder what other functions could be integrated easier after mirroring it.

    • @materiasacra
      @materiasacra 7 років тому +35

      Of the elementary functions: all the inverse trig functions and their hyperbolic cousins.

    • @gyroninjamodder
      @gyroninjamodder 7 років тому +47

      Do not think of it as mirroring, but rather as integrating along a different axis.
      So for y=ln x we are integrating with respect to dy

    • @bonbonpony
      @bonbonpony 6 років тому +12

      As long as you choose the limits of integration wisely: pretty much every function ;)
      You just need to make sure that after flipping around it won't be multi-valued ;)

    • @Theo_Caro
      @Theo_Caro 5 років тому +7

      Sqrt(x) comes to mind. Like gyroninja said, consider x=y^2.

    • @whatelseison8970
      @whatelseison8970 5 років тому +3

      @@gyroninjamodder That's a really good point and indeed a better perspective imo.

  • @MarkMcDaniel
    @MarkMcDaniel 6 років тому +6

    Those kids are adorable. Great way to rethink the problem.

  • @AlRoderick
    @AlRoderick 7 років тому +34

    I'm smiling so hard right now, you don't even know

  • @viewer4229
    @viewer4229 5 років тому +12

    It's magic, that kid know higher mathematics! Wonderful

  • @MunkyChunk
    @MunkyChunk 5 років тому +10

    I had actually considered the 2nd as a method but didn’t know if I was right until I was amazed he (Oon Han) had also found it! He’s incredible for his age!

  • @gastonsolaril.237
    @gastonsolaril.237 5 років тому +6

    Just subscribed to your channel...
    Shared it with my financial engineering team.
    Great content, great image.
    Keep up with the good work!

  • @Kurtlane
    @Kurtlane 7 років тому +6

    "Believe in your limits!" - love it.

  • @jcnatarte2862
    @jcnatarte2862 4 роки тому +1

    that black ball is the source of all the knowledge of the universe

  • @RonaldRKumar
    @RonaldRKumar 3 роки тому +1

    Very nice. In fact carefully setting y = lnx, and therefore x = e^y makes it easier. As shown in the video, it is important to at set or identify the correct bounds. So, if x-->0, y--> minus infty, and x-->1, y--> 0, so the bounds are from -infty to 0. The trick here is to know that the integral of lnx is minus of the exponential, before evaluating. Thanks.

  • @thomasblackwell9507
    @thomasblackwell9507 4 роки тому +2

    I really enjoyed this one. Like I said before it has been over 30 years since I was at the university but I have always enjoyed mathematics. Great job! Keep us on our toes!

  • @jameswilson8270
    @jameswilson8270 7 років тому +14

    Awesome Job Oon Han! I've seen this method before, but did not even think to use it!

  • @Joe-cz1tt
    @Joe-cz1tt 5 років тому +13

    Meanwhile my classmates don't know how to set up a table for a hyperbola

  • @mihaiciorobitca5287
    @mihaiciorobitca5287 7 років тому +1

    about 6:00 the limit could solve using the remarcable averge
    lim xn->0 of ln(xn)/xn=1

  • @jsscheng.
    @jsscheng. 2 роки тому +1

    This youngster has amazed me!
    I'm inspired.
    Congratulations.

  • @eriksahlin8853
    @eriksahlin8853 Рік тому

    Incredibly badass solution to use the symmetry of inverse functions! Very impressive!

  • @vdvman1
    @vdvman1 7 років тому +78

    Could you do a proof of L'Hopital's rule? I've seen it used a lot on this channel but I don't know why it works

    • @anshulraman4503
      @anshulraman4503 7 років тому +5

      vdvman1
      ThreeBlueOneBrown did a series on calculus. Highly recomended. In this video of that series at around 10:00 mins mark he explains why L'Hopital's rule work.
      ua-cam.com/video/kfF40MiS7zA/v-deo.html

    • @vdvman1
      @vdvman1 7 років тому +1

      Anshul Raman I actually have watched ThreeBlueOneBrown's calculus series, guess I missed the one on L'Hopital's rule

    • @vdvman1
      @vdvman1 7 років тому

      Or forgot about it

    • @Invalid571
      @Invalid571 7 років тому

      L'hopital wiki:
      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Hôpital%27s_rule

    • @bonbonpony
      @bonbonpony 6 років тому +6

      It pretty much checks which grows/shrinks faster: the numerator or the denominator, by comparing their slopes (or rates of change). And the slopes are the derivatives.

  • @bigfatpandalaktana2747
    @bigfatpandalaktana2747 2 роки тому

    Damn, that kid actually left me speechless. That was amazing.

  • @maxklement4101
    @maxklement4101 5 років тому +1

    My favorite way to evaluate this integral is using Feynmans method. You can define a function I(t) equal to int integral between zero and 1 of x^t dx which is an integral you can evaluate to find (x^(t+1))/(t+1) between zero and one or just 1/(t+1) Then you can find I’(t) by differentiating the original integral I(t) and distributing the derivative into the integral as a partial derivative to find that I’(t) is equal to the natural log of x with respect to x then you can set the two equal

  • @Inspirator_AG112
    @Inspirator_AG112 Рік тому +2

    Trick:
    It is just the rotated + mirrored area of eˣ, just negative, so it is the negative integral of eˣ from -∞ to 0. That is a much easier function to integrate.

  • @diegotejada55
    @diegotejada55 6 років тому

    I've never seen such a well-drawn sign of integration

  • @3manthing
    @3manthing 4 роки тому +1

    I'm pretty sure when i was his age, i was thinking about which dinosaur i want to be for haloween, lol. Well done.

  • @takyc7883
    @takyc7883 4 роки тому

    That kid is going places. Lil genius

  • @HenrikMyrhaug
    @HenrikMyrhaug 3 роки тому

    Meanwhile, when I thought our math was too easy when I was young, I was told to "stop complaining and show your work" when I could solve most problems in my head.
    I always loved math, but only because I was watching youtube videos with math problems slightly above my level. I really wish the 'no child left behind' policy didn't cause teachers to focus less on gifted kids. I understand the damage to people who struggle with math being left behind is greater than the damage to gifted people who don't get to be pushed ahead, but I really wish I got better guidance when I was younger.
    I am so happy this kid gets to do what he loves, and I hope he gets all the further guidance he needs to keep excelling!

  • @MrRyanroberson1
    @MrRyanroberson1 7 років тому

    1:40... this is like the reverse feinman technique! you just differentiate the inside and multiply by increasing n values in x^n /n!. This is golden

  • @วิระพิทักษ์ถิร

    Very very nice and creative solution

  • @theyugijoker5856
    @theyugijoker5856 3 роки тому +1

    Wow. He made the Asian cliché more true than 1=1!
    This was amazing, genuinely impressed
    Have people at my university who are stuck at polynomial Integrations. Seeing that a kid this young does this is just unbelievable!

  • @lordofcastamere9376
    @lordofcastamere9376 7 років тому +1

    Oon Han is a smart guy. I am like twice his age and do pre-university level and I dont even learn this. Good work

  • @Vantin33
    @Vantin33 2 роки тому +1

    I don't know what the hospital rule is but the limit of xlnx when x tends to 0 is equivalent to -ln(X)/X when X tends to + infinity with X=1/x and this limit is 0 by comparative growth.

    • @LordAmerican
      @LordAmerican 2 роки тому

      L'Hôpital's Rule is exactly comparing growth rate. The basic idea is that you have two functions: f and g, and the quotient f/g is indeterminate (0/0 or ∞/∞). The limit of f/g equals the limit of f'/g', where f' is the derivative of f and g' is the derivative of g. Basically what L'Hôpital's Rule does is check to see which function is growing more quickly, and from there the limit can be inferred by that how much bigger one is than the other. If f'/g' is still indeterminate, then you can do it again to check f"/g", and if that is indeterminate still ... you get the idea. There is no limit (heh) to how many times you can apply L'Hôpital's Rule to a specific problem.

  • @rijubhatt8366
    @rijubhatt8366 3 роки тому +1

    Oon Han all the best to you. Thank You for the informative video.

  • @jshook
    @jshook 4 роки тому +2

    This just shows you how bad America's educational system is. Most people don't learn calculus until they're 20, and this young man is already very knowledgeable.

  • @choiyoungsu7249
    @choiyoungsu7249 5 років тому +14

    Damn... this 8 year old kid knows more maths than me, Now i feel dumb haha :''D

  • @mohammadelsayed5715
    @mohammadelsayed5715 4 роки тому +1

    I love with your work guys ❤️

  • @wenhanzhou5826
    @wenhanzhou5826 5 років тому

    what a brilliant solution by Oon Han!

  • @giuseppe.vavassori
    @giuseppe.vavassori 4 роки тому

    The young kid will be a good engineer

  • @grf73tube
    @grf73tube 4 роки тому

    That kid gives me hope about the future of humanity...

  • @laucheukming5580
    @laucheukming5580 3 роки тому

    wow, the second method is quite simple, talented kid

  • @guibarreta1993
    @guibarreta1993 2 роки тому

    beautifull video and the second method is awesome!!

  • @srpenguinbr
    @srpenguinbr 7 років тому

    We can also use the inverse function formula
    Integral of f^-1(x)dx=
    x•f^-1(x)-F(f^-1(x))+c

  • @Metalhammer1993
    @Metalhammer1993 5 років тому +1

    good work as usual brbp but special praise to oonhan. don´t take it wrong buddy, but i liked oonhan´s method way better (it´s a simple and brilliant idea) and he explained it really well. Especially considering his age. good work young man.

  • @fCauneau
    @fCauneau 7 років тому +3

    I was so pleased watching this delighful video (both demonstrations), that I was about to forget to click on thumb up ;-) But it's OK, I did it !!

  • @amir-gd4fu
    @amir-gd4fu 4 роки тому

    The way you explained inegration by parts made my heart ache.

  • @sonysantos
    @sonysantos 4 роки тому

    Awesome 2nd method! Fantastic! Applause!

  • @mpperfidy
    @mpperfidy 2 роки тому

    I'm a big fan, and I've seen most (?) of your videos, but find myself wondering how I never saw this - Oon Han is awesome, "isn't it!"

  • @diego_sabbagh
    @diego_sabbagh 6 років тому +15

    I also wanna be a cat...

  • @notstemmajor357
    @notstemmajor357 3 роки тому

    lowkey flexing supreme

  • @marceloavila87
    @marceloavila87 6 років тому +2

    Yeah, what a smart kid! How old is Oon Han? He solved this integral in a way that I' ve never thought of. Much more clever and easier.
    Thank you a lot.

    • @erikkonstas
      @erikkonstas 5 років тому

      In another comment bprp said he was 10 ~a year ago.

  • @mokouf3
    @mokouf3 5 років тому +1

    Oon Han's method is actually same as what I have thought.
    Looks like that Oon Han is a kid. Do not underestimate a kid!

  • @omarhossam2723
    @omarhossam2723 4 роки тому

    Actually i was impressed by Oon after using inverses method and made my day, I subscribed to Oon. 😉 good luck

  • @VolksdeutscheSS
    @VolksdeutscheSS 2 роки тому

    This young man is very impressive--even if he's rehearsed. Wow.

  • @caistah6792
    @caistah6792 2 роки тому

    Amazing!!! the axis stuff!!

  • @BloobleBonker
    @BloobleBonker 3 роки тому

    Oon Han made it sooooo easy!

  • @mplaw77
    @mplaw77 6 років тому

    Liked the 2nd method .... very clever !!!

  • @herowise6021
    @herowise6021 7 років тому +1

    That editting

  • @benardolivier6624
    @benardolivier6624 3 роки тому

    That kid is 10 years old and solves integrals. I look at my nephew and niece which are also 10 and all they do is watch spongebob and multiply two numbers lower than 10 together. His method is explained in simple terms, making it really clever.

  • @p_sopasakis
    @p_sopasakis 5 років тому

    @blackpenredpen Isn't the second method like setting x = exp(u)?

  • @Ben.2000
    @Ben.2000 7 років тому +3

    In his age i didnt know how to multiply damn he's good XD

  • @loadstone5149
    @loadstone5149 Рік тому

    His bit about making the integral negative could be improved. The reason why the integral is negative is because you’re flipping the bounds. The integral of lnx from 0 to 1 is the same as the integral of e^x from 1 to 0.

  • @haggaisimon7748
    @haggaisimon7748 4 роки тому +2

    Good boy. Should I show this video to my 11 years old son? Will it inspire him or infuriate him? Or it will discourage him? A pedagogical question.

  • @stydras3380
    @stydras3380 7 років тому +1

    Very nice c: Oon Han's the man! ;)

  • @wayneosaur
    @wayneosaur 4 роки тому

    Doesn't it equal lim_{n -> 0+} \int_n^1 dx/x which equals lim_{n -> 0+} (1 - 1/n) which diverges? Why does this more direct method reach a different conclusion?

  • @gloystar
    @gloystar 5 років тому +1

    I'll be doomed.. Is that a 9-yr old kid solving integrals?

  • @tamarkan
    @tamarkan 3 роки тому

    Why didn't the bounds change for the second part of the integration by parts?

  • @MrRyanroberson1
    @MrRyanroberson1 7 років тому

    3:33, well for negative values of x just add i*pi to ln(-x) (-x being positive since x was negative)

    • @MrRyanroberson1
      @MrRyanroberson1 7 років тому

      7:44 so the area between y=1 and ln(x) to the right of x=0 must be equal to 3, yes?

  • @jordanshemilt6065
    @jordanshemilt6065 7 років тому +1

    Question: What is the limit as n tends to infinity of (n^n)/n? Some might see it as n^(n-1) with tends to infinity but in the question you are dividing by infinity which would cause problems. @blackpenredpen

    • @TheCerinianAssassin
      @TheCerinianAssassin 7 років тому +5

      The limit would give us Inf./Inf. L'Hopital's rule would lead us to (n^n)(ln(n)+1)/1, which clearly tends to infinity as n approaches infinity.

  • @hreader
    @hreader 3 роки тому

    I think the second way's better - certainly easier to follow! Very neat.

  • @franckray8438
    @franckray8438 5 років тому +1

    Can anyone tell me which video of his should I check out for the D-I method mentioned in the video?

  • @saraali1276
    @saraali1276 4 роки тому

    I have a question if the root at the bottom is the same way

  • @morbidmanatee5550
    @morbidmanatee5550 7 років тому +1

    Great stuff!

  • @ZeeshanJamal-dm9jy
    @ZeeshanJamal-dm9jy 3 роки тому

    then why does -ve infinite comes as a result when I differentiate it further the traditional way?

  • @pepethefrog1151
    @pepethefrog1151 7 років тому

    What a smart solution!!

  • @adityatripathi1648
    @adityatripathi1648 6 років тому

    If in a definite integral we cannot integrate by parts or any other technique than can we do the mclaurin expansion of the function than integrate each new func

  • @tokajileo5928
    @tokajileo5928 3 роки тому

    so, if you find a general formula where the inverse of the riemann zeta goes to infinity you get a million bucks

  • @eshraj9215
    @eshraj9215 2 роки тому

    bro i lost it when i got out mathed by a youngster

  • @KabeloTladi
    @KabeloTladi 4 роки тому

    And I understand lebesgue integration because of the kid. Measure theory just clicked in. How wonderful life is.

  • @disgruntledtoons
    @disgruntledtoons 2 роки тому

    This is just about the very easiest domain to integrate for that function.

  • @yerr234
    @yerr234 6 років тому

    i have to say i'm impressed

  • @alfr9999
    @alfr9999 5 років тому

    This is an improper integral. Firstable you have to express the integral as a limit. Lim(t tends 0+) of integral from t to 1 of lnxdx

  • @arkitray1543
    @arkitray1543 4 роки тому

    Shouldn't it be an abs value of -1 since the area is always positive?

  • @fabiojunior7496
    @fabiojunior7496 5 років тому +5

    I used to considere the 0.ln(0)=0, cuz anything times 0 is equal to 0, i don’t know if i was doing some sacrilege but the final answer gonna be -1 as well xD

    • @onionlayers9457
      @onionlayers9457 5 років тому

      Yeah me too

    • @zephyrred3366
      @zephyrred3366 5 років тому +1

      Well if you apply this to x*(1/x2) = 0*smth = 0.
      But clearly x/x2 = 1/x -> inf (x->0)

    • @justabunga1
      @justabunga1 5 років тому

      You cannot say that 0 times plus or minus infinity is equal to 0 because it’s an indeterminate form, and infinity is not a number. You have to do more work when you do limits using l’Hopital’s rule.

  • @wydadiyoun
    @wydadiyoun Рік тому

    is there a formal proof that the second method is correct?

  • @infirmuxx
    @infirmuxx 6 років тому

    Excellent.

  • @funkwy431
    @funkwy431 2 роки тому

    I dont get why he didnt use the second method firstly, its pretty damn obvious that you could just e^x instead because that way youll be dealing with the horizontal asymptote instead of the vertical one in the logarithmic function.

  • @willbishop1355
    @willbishop1355 7 років тому +8

    This may be sacrilege on the bprp channel, but I don't like the D-I method. It may be easy to memorize, but provides no intuition for why it's true. In contrast, the (uv - integral v du) method is easily derived from the product rule. If taught correctly, there's no need to memorize an algorithm for integration by parts at all - you just have to know the product rule. Great videos though.

    • @williamtachyon2630
      @williamtachyon2630 6 років тому

      Will Bishop
      That’s what I taught as well.

    • @tresslerdominick
      @tresslerdominick 6 років тому

      My calc BC teacher calls it the voo vadoo method
      (Cause vu-Int(vdu))

    • @volcanic3104
      @volcanic3104 6 років тому

      Will Bishop For longer problems its just convenient but I agree knowing why the method works is very important

  • @DarkSlayerphlc
    @DarkSlayerphlc 5 років тому

    Great the both of you!!!!!!!

  • @Unique656
    @Unique656 3 роки тому +1

    We can apply Feymann's technique to solve this integral.

  • @DenisBencic
    @DenisBencic 6 років тому +1

    In Oon Han's background you can hear some really f'ing creepy sounds.

  • @saraali1276
    @saraali1276 4 роки тому

    Thanks 🙏🏻