very good video, but the index of the general leibniz rule does not go to infinity but to n :) *** oh sorry i was too fast, you corrected it later on, very nice video
A good catch nonetheless! Technically it's not wrong if it goes to infinity because the binomial coefficient (n choose k) is equal to 0 for k > n (for k and n both positive integers), but that makes things look a big more complicated in this case. Plus no need to add 0 to the sum.
I’m Sorry Sir but how did u do that 6:15 part
I wanna know more ab this one could u explain more
When k=0, there is no derivative thus the x term remains the same. When k =1 , nCk = n and dx/dx =1
very good video, but the index of the general leibniz rule does not go to infinity but to n :)
*** oh sorry i was too fast, you corrected it later on, very nice video
A good catch nonetheless! Technically it's not wrong if it goes to infinity because the binomial coefficient (n choose k) is equal to 0 for k > n (for k and n both positive integers), but that makes things look a big more complicated in this case. Plus no need to add 0 to the sum.
Hello, at 8:00 shouldn't it be (-1)^(n+1) and not n-1 ?
Thank you for the question! Those are the same since (-1)^(n-1) = (-1)^2 (-1)^(n-1) = (-1)^(n+1) .
@@physicsandmathlectures3289 I gave it more thought and I came to a similar conclusion, perfect for showing the recurrence relations. Thank you!
Thanks
Glad you liked it!
I liked your polynomial series. Spline polynomials could also be added to this.
I love you