How is he this good at explaining hard concepts it honestly baffles me,my teachers explanations were so bad and hard to understand but Zeeshan explained it absolutely brilliantly.God bless you!
i did not understand example 3) we said that n must not be multiple of 3 however we wrote it as n=3k+1 , as we can factorise it to n=3(k)+1 and it is a multiple of 3 ?
Uve proved that EVERY non multiple of three number squared will also not be a multiple of three, so theres no case where u can have a non multiple of three square to a multiple of three, so ur contradiction is wrong
@@jeffs_r_us7166 that's the point of the contradiction. It's supposed to highlight the fact that there's no case where you can have a non multiple of three square to a multiple of three, by stating that every non multiple of 3 will always ever square to a non multple of three
How is he this good at explaining hard concepts it honestly baffles me,my teachers explanations were so bad and hard to understand but Zeeshan explained it absolutely brilliantly.God bless you!
Zeeshan has explained this in 13 minutes better than my maths teachers had throughout the year, thank you!
Mate Iv finished my a levels I just love this guy😂❤️💯
What grade did you get?
@@adailyfact bro asked 2 years later🤣🤣
@@exultant5728 just curious haha
THIS MAN IS A GENIUS
thank you so much for this I take further math and I have to finish my A level math exam in 1 year and this video really helped!!!
Thank may Allah bless you
6:19 There is also the case where n=3k+2 or n=3k-1
this is a very good and detailed explanation thank you so much for the lesson
selam, but if n is not a multiple of 3, cant it be 3k - 1 or 3k + 2?
dont we need to do them all?
My teacher said u gotta do both cases cuz it comes under it not being a multiple of 3 and the textbook says that aswell@ali_a1805
wallah i love this guy
THATS WHY HE'S THE GOAAT
The goat🐐🐐🐐
Ifn is an odd number then n^4 is also an odd number. Please answer that
i did not understand example 3) we said that n must not be multiple of 3 however we wrote it as n=3k+1 , as we can factorise it to n=3(k)+1 and it is a multiple of 3 ?
@@ali_a1805 thank you i have got it now
Uve proved that EVERY non multiple of three number squared will also not be a multiple of three, so theres no case where u can have a non multiple of three square to a multiple of three, so ur contradiction is wrong
@@jeffs_r_us7166 that's the point of the contradiction. It's supposed to highlight the fact that there's no case where you can have a non multiple of three square to a multiple of three, by stating that every non multiple of 3 will always ever square to a non multple of three
It’s coming home nnnnext yr
Nah🇦🇷
@@zidaneakbar7209 fr
🔥
Omg Sooo crispyyyy
Thank you
thanksss
🐐🐐
thank you!!!
Wow
What if n squared was 3? Then n would be root 3 and therefore not a multiple of three?
root 3 is irrational in these questions they are integers
thankyouuuu