Prealgebra Lecture 6.4: Simplifying Square Roots and Solving Problems with the Pythagorean Theorem.

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 6 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 33

  • @EmaanSheikh-17
    @EmaanSheikh-17 Рік тому +3

    I love the way you teach. My school teacher teaches us 1 section with no explination, and only 1 example and no one understands anything. You are the only reason i can keep up with school. Thankyou!

  • @ashbymoonlight4658
    @ashbymoonlight4658 3 роки тому +16

    The fact this is teaching me more than school does is impressive

    • @chuckles2040
      @chuckles2040 3 роки тому +2

      no crap, i learned more in 3 days, than 2 years of high school math. 3 days than 2 years of college math..

  • @ummizaansabir4869
    @ummizaansabir4869 8 років тому +6

    Just thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am learning a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • @damian_wu
    @damian_wu 4 роки тому +2

    7:53 moment is brilliant, that student's confusion :D

  • @youmanakil3914
    @youmanakil3914 4 місяці тому

    Full of fun all the best professor 😂😂😂

  • @ayesha9523
    @ayesha9523 6 років тому +1

    you accually made it easy
    THANKYOU

  • @Peter_1986
    @Peter_1986 3 роки тому +4

    37:00
    lol, "high pot".

  • @ReniChris07
    @ReniChris07 2 роки тому +1

    Thank you so much 😊

  • @eduardocesar3605
    @eduardocesar3605 4 роки тому +1

    So, Mr. Leonard, the square root of every number that is not a perfect square is going to be an irrational number?

  • @horizonbrave1533
    @horizonbrave1533 6 років тому +2

    Hmm brings up the question... what were Socrates and plato's views about Pythagoras and his ideas?

    • @LunarKR
      @LunarKR 5 місяців тому

      wasnt socrates' philosophies built on pythagoras' ideas?

  • @gunnarrudovics9252
    @gunnarrudovics9252 7 років тому +3

    Pythagorean theorem ua-cam.com/video/FdLA93kCr8Y/v-deo.htmlm19s
    Leonard: Thank you for your time and work. It has been very enjoyful and helpful lesson. Your teaching style is a world-class. Keep it up!

  • @chordsequencer001
    @chordsequencer001 8 років тому +1

    Now, is it a standard thing to round irrational sq roots to the nearest hundredth??

    • @robertwilsoniii2048
      @robertwilsoniii2048 7 років тому

      Just depends on whatever they want. But hundredth is a common one because it is easy to write and read.

  • @0willow0
    @0willow0 Рік тому

    16:30 is there a more rigorous way of thinking about - sqr rt 36 than "it's the opposite of whatever the sqr rt is"? Because I could answer that the root is also -6, and thus the final answer is also 6 because that's the opposite of -6.

  • @marxizalias3193
    @marxizalias3193 3 роки тому

    Right.
    SQRT(-X) = (-X)^(1/2)
    That's because the Symbol treats everything under the line as in brackets.
    That means that when I get to calculus and I must not make the mistake of converting the SQRT to -x^(1/2)
    Because sqrt(-25) -25^(1/2)
    Good to know.

  • @chordsequencer001
    @chordsequencer001 8 років тому

    At the end of the video, would a length more or less of 11 work?

    • @davidharford3873
      @davidharford3873 7 років тому

      Sure, just depends how you want to round it. How accurate you want to be.

  • @jacobcurnow4440
    @jacobcurnow4440 7 років тому +2

    Dude I used to own a hooked on phonics when I was 10. Omfg thanks for the memories! ROFL

  • @mango8173
    @mango8173 4 роки тому +3

    My teachers making me watch this 4 class.

    • @Hgulix62
      @Hgulix62 4 роки тому +5

      Your teacher is lazy

  • @123Baxter321
    @123Baxter321 Рік тому

    I'm high on potenuse.

  • @robertwilsoniii2048
    @robertwilsoniii2048 7 років тому +1

    I just realized that all the major controversial issues of math are built around the real numbers. Very suspect. Fantastic lecture though.

  • @shannonfernandes6420
    @shannonfernandes6420 Рік тому

    10:29

  • @robertwilsoniii2048
    @robertwilsoniii2048 7 років тому +1

    As an empiricist I'd say actual real numbers don't exist since perfect geometries don't exist, only tolerances and approximations do, which are rational numbers, not irrational numbers, at the end of the day. But I guess metaphysics isn't something to talk about too much here. Anyway, I like Lock, Hume's Skepticism and Kant's Transcendental Idealism, and reject the notion that mathematics is something innate to people. Though I do agree with Chomsky in that I do believe language is innate, but I also think language can be explained biologically. But I would also guess there are people that exist who struggle with language too, so it would seem that "inate" vs "not inate" is not something that is consistent across all of humanity. I'm sorry if I blow any minds by mentioning Hume, but I just can't not mention it when we talk about Pythagoras. Okay, that's all the philosophy I'm going to mention.

    • @theerisedhd8666
      @theerisedhd8666 6 років тому +16

      You spelt John Locke's last name wrong and your comment contains a number of grammatical errors, so I would would advise bushing up on your writing skills before trying to spread your narcissistic crap throughout the internet.

    • @theerisedhd8666
      @theerisedhd8666 6 років тому +1

      +TheErisedHD Murphy's law strikes again! Thou shalt always make grammatical errors when correcting someone. I'm going to down a packet of oreos now.

    • @sunrelease
      @sunrelease 4 роки тому +10

      ...Dude, way to name-drop every philosopher that freshman undergrads learn about in Philosophy 101. No minds are being "blown" by your brief and completely unnecessary mention of Hume. Get over yourself.

    • @魏婴-u2w
      @魏婴-u2w 4 роки тому +5

      @@sunrelease I'm sorry if I.... bLoW aNy miNdS

  • @fredavastine2922
    @fredavastine2922 3 роки тому

    Someone needs to tell this guy gotta is not in the English language