Proof of The Product Rule

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 11 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 19

  • @pradeepgupta3643
    @pradeepgupta3643 2 роки тому +10

    Explaining brilliantly

  • @anonymous-ui7il
    @anonymous-ui7il 2 роки тому +12

    please do make the video on the rubrics cube, would love it

  • @ivanhorbenko7529
    @ivanhorbenko7529 Місяць тому

    Just saw this video only now. It is really useful, I completely missed this point. Yes, my high school time was long ago but still it was worth recapping this topic.

  • @holyshit922
    @holyshit922 Рік тому +3

    We should add zero to be able to collect the terms and separate fractions
    I found in the internet how to solve Rubic's cube by LBL method which is the easiest one
    Can we find any mathematic problems involving Rubic's cube ?

  • @SuhelHasnein
    @SuhelHasnein Рік тому +2

    I love your videos, well explained!👌

  • @holyshit922
    @holyshit922 Місяць тому

    There is also product rule for higher derivatives
    It looks like binomial expansion but instead of powers we have derivatives
    You can prove it by induction
    As an example:
    Calculate d^n/dt^n f(x,t)
    where f(x,t) = exp(xt)cos(sqrt(1-x^2)t)
    (f(x,t) is exponential generating function of Chebyshev polynomials)
    This is good example because
    d^n/dt^n exp(xt) = x^nexp(xt)
    d^n/dt^n cos(sqrt(1-x^2)t) = (sqrt(1-x^2))^{n}cos(pi/2*n + sqrt(1-x^2)t)
    Could you record video about it ?

    • @holyshit922
      @holyshit922 Місяць тому

      Here Wikipedia claims that exponential generating function of Chebyshev polynomials is exp(xt)cosh(sqrt(x^2-1))
      but this version needs purely imaginary argument for hyperbolic cosine because x in [-1;1] so trigonometric cosine suits better

  • @MalatjiMeshack
    @MalatjiMeshack 9 місяців тому

    Thank you so much, I'm learning a lot from your videos

  • @Sonny2009
    @Sonny2009 6 місяців тому

    One thing I get confused is Newton's f prime notation drops the dx. But Liebnez always keeps the dx. Then when we try to do integral we need to write dx back to f prime. Does anybody know why that is? And

  • @yuyuvybz
    @yuyuvybz Місяць тому

    Been a year man
    Has the video on rubic's cobe dropped??

  • @williampeters71
    @williampeters71 7 місяців тому +1

    I watched a professor from MIT show this proof but he botched it totally so I could not understand him he did not make a mistake but he did not place emphasis on adding and subtracting "something" that is the why of it. Of course this proof we take for granted is a stroke of genius I am wondering how Newton proved this that is how his proof was unsatisfactory and Yes will check your web site like to see a proof of rubrics cube!

  • @memosaw6216
    @memosaw6216 2 місяці тому

    Great video, but how are you sure that product of a limit is equal to the limit of the product?

    • @PrimeNewtons
      @PrimeNewtons  2 місяці тому +1

      If the limits are finite, that's a limit law.

  • @punditgi
    @punditgi 2 роки тому +2

    Awesome!

  • @ThenSaidHeUntoThem
    @ThenSaidHeUntoThem 2 роки тому +2

    👌👌👌😍😍

  • @g.yohannes1848
    @g.yohannes1848 9 місяців тому

    the rubrics cube and then chess

  • @christophvonpezold4699
    @christophvonpezold4699 2 роки тому +2

    64th view, really nice number in that iirc it's. the lowest number that is both a perfect cube and a perfect square (besides 1 of course) great video!

    • @PrimeNewtons
      @PrimeNewtons  2 роки тому

      64 is the smallest number with exactly 7 divisors 👌🤣

  • @anonymous-ui7il
    @anonymous-ui7il 2 роки тому +3

    22nd view, 5th like😗