*_Yes, yes it is. Deez Nutz xdddDDDDdd_* Check out my newest video over on @Flammy's Wood ! =D ua-cam.com/video/tTpjWePfK7o/v-deo.html Train your Calculus Expertise by trying out Brilliant! =D brilliant.org/FlammableMaths Support the channel by checking out Deez Nutz over on stemerch.eu/ ! :3 Wuck. play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.flammablemaths.Wuck Shirt from the Video: stemerch.eu/collections/eulers-identity
I made math that can synchronize 2wheeled bots and prevent collision with just math itself. For communication no sensors instead linear distance formula to test weather swarm pattern will collide. Wondering if showing this will lightly contribute to STEM. Flammy if ur interested I can post video. If u think is self promo 4 my channel I'll post it to u privately.
wondering if anyone has mentioned/used the trick of splitting log(x+1) into log(x) + log(1+1/x) = log(x) + 1, and then once you cancel log(x) the answer just stares you in the face. Although that method doesn't particularly take domain into account I think its pretty cute. great video anyways!
My answer was to recognize 1=ln(e), then use the fact that ln(a)+ln(b)=ln(ab) to get ln(x+1)=ln(ex). We get that x+1=ex, (1-e)x+1=0, and this gets us x=1/(e-1).
Hi Garrison. Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider ua-cam.com/video/l5ef8BNduDs/v-deo.html and other videos in the Olympiad playlist. Cheers
If you convert log_b(x) into base a you get log_a(x+t) = [log_a(x)/log_a(b)] + s Multiplying through: k*log_a(x+t) = log_a(x) + sk with k = log_a(b) Using log properties: (x+t)^k = xa^(sk) So you get a polynomial if k is an integer and something even more nasty if not. Really depends on the two bases, and even if it's a polynomial, you might not be able to solve it exactly depending on how big it is.
Actually we can use the fundamental theorem of engineering to prove pi=0. Proof: sin(x)=x, now put sin(pi) into your calculator and you get 0 sin(pi)=0, pi=x=0: pi=0 QED.
If a^s=1 (making the denominator a^s-1 zero in your formula for x) we can still have a solution as long as t=0. In this case the equation reduces to 0=x×0. Instead of trying to divide by 0, we simply notice that this is satisfied by all x (which, of course, was obvious from the start).
Hi Abhishek. Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider ua-cam.com/video/l5ef8BNduDs/v-deo.html and other videos in the Olympiad playlist. Cheers
Hi Oyibe. Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider ua-cam.com/video/l5ef8BNduDs/v-deo.html and other videos in the Olympiad playlist. Cheers
2:55 I'm very sad that papa Flammy don't know Russian and misses opportunity to multiply both sides of equation x + 1 = xe by some non-zero constant p.
1/(e-1) ≈ 1/1.72 ≈ 0.6 Weirdly my guestimating just based on the nature of log and knowing a few values(mostly that ln(0.5)=-0.69 and ln(1)=0) was 0.5, so I was very close with a guess.
@@PapaFlammy69 you could do that tho, for example with sin(x+1) = sin(x) + 1 or other functional equations like that. Maybe even shit like sin(x + y) = sin(x) + sin(y)
Hi Monke. Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider ua-cam.com/video/l5ef8BNduDs/v-deo.html and other videos in the Olympiad playlist. Cheers
Hi Jakub. Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider ua-cam.com/video/l5ef8BNduDs/v-deo.html and other videos in the Olympiad playlist. Cheers
Well i almost solved it slightly drunk in my mind, but i got 1/1-e instead of 1/e-1 cause i forgot the last step. Then i solved it on paper and got (1/(e-1))
Hi Neutronen. Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider ua-cam.com/video/l5ef8BNduDs/v-deo.html and other videos in the Olympiad playlist. Cheers
2:00 okay so if it is the „NATURAL LOGARITHM of x, the ln x” then why the heck do you write it as a decimal logarithm as log x it is so disturbing teally please stop
Unfortunately, the provided solution is not correct. log refers to logarithm with base 10 and ln refers to logarithm with base e. The correct solutions is therefore 1/9.
It all depends on context. For mathematicians, most times you talk about logarithms you talk about the natural logarithm because it’s more useful in the context of calculus. For engineers, most times you talk about log base 10 because it’s more important to discuss orders of magnitude. For computer scientists, most times you talk about log base 2 because you work with binary systems. In each study, you see it just referred to as log, but so long as the context is understood, then there really isn’t any error. There’s really no use in being that pedantic.
Jens has an irrational fear of writing ln for log base e for some reason, so on this channel log means ln. No idea why that is the case though, it mildly triggers me tbf
*_Yes, yes it is. Deez Nutz xdddDDDDdd_*
Check out my newest video over on @Flammy's Wood ! =D ua-cam.com/video/tTpjWePfK7o/v-deo.html
Train your Calculus Expertise by trying out Brilliant! =D brilliant.org/FlammableMaths
Support the channel by checking out Deez Nutz over on stemerch.eu/ ! :3
Wuck. play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.flammablemaths.Wuck
Shirt from the Video: stemerch.eu/collections/eulers-identity
Second reply
flomable meths
If s=0 and t =0. Then its just an always true statement.
Log x = log x
I made math that can synchronize 2wheeled bots and prevent collision with just math itself. For communication no sensors instead linear distance formula to test weather swarm pattern will collide. Wondering if showing this will lightly contribute to STEM. Flammy if ur interested I can post video. If u think is self promo 4 my channel I'll post it to u privately.
The last equation you defined has no solution when 'a' is a s-th root of unity, papa flammy.
3:42 for the reference noobs, he's using the fundamental theorem of engineering
3:42 mfw e-1 is an integer
:^)
Papa flammy, when can we expect to see the further maths a level video, I can't wait to see it !!
soon! :)
7:58 I bet that triggered a few people's PTSD from "this question is trivial and is left as an excercise to the reader".
wondering if anyone has mentioned/used the trick of splitting log(x+1) into log(x) + log(1+1/x) = log(x) + 1, and then once you cancel log(x) the answer just stares you in the face. Although that method doesn't particularly take domain into account I think its pretty cute. great video anyways!
My answer was to recognize 1=ln(e), then use the fact that ln(a)+ln(b)=ln(ab) to get ln(x+1)=ln(ex). We get that x+1=ex, (1-e)x+1=0, and this gets us x=1/(e-1).
Hi Garrison. Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider
ua-cam.com/video/l5ef8BNduDs/v-deo.html and other videos in the Olympiad playlist. Cheers
@@SQRTime no
0:08 You should rename the channel to velociraptor maths what the fuck was that noise.
xD
@@PapaFlammy69 XD
What about log_a(x + t) = log_b(x) + s?
ohhhh, that is a good question, didn't think about that before :)
If you convert log_b(x) into base a you get log_a(x+t) = [log_a(x)/log_a(b)] + s
Multiplying through: k*log_a(x+t) = log_a(x) + sk with k = log_a(b)
Using log properties: (x+t)^k = xa^(sk)
So you get a polynomial if k is an integer and something even more nasty if not. Really depends on the two bases, and even if it's a polynomial, you might not be able to solve it exactly depending on how big it is.
@@Alex_Deam I knew it was gonna be complicated lmao
Your banner says pi videos a week but if you approximate pi as 0 you would be correct.
It's about π - e per week at the moment.
Actually we can use the fundamental theorem of engineering to prove pi=0.
Proof:
sin(x)=x, now put sin(pi) into your calculator and you get 0
sin(pi)=0, pi=x=0:
pi=0
QED.
@@farrankhawaja9856 But the other fundamenetal theorem of engineering states that pi = e = 3.
Which, together with yours, proves that 3 = 0. QED
It would've been fun if you solved using complex numbers
If a^s=1 (making the denominator a^s-1 zero in your formula for x) we can still have a solution as long as t=0. In this case the equation reduces to 0=x×0. Instead of trying to divide by 0, we simply notice that this is satisfied by all x (which, of course, was obvious from the start).
I solved it by seeing thumbnail with second method.
Hi Abhishek. Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider
ua-cam.com/video/l5ef8BNduDs/v-deo.html and other videos in the Olympiad playlist. Cheers
Will you ever revive Mathvengers?
nope
@@PapaFlammy69 this is a sad day for mathematicians worldwide
That's a shame, I really liked the series
As we get older, flammy's tuberculosis gets worst.
But in complex numbers there are infinite log value, can any of complex solutions satisfy it?
yes, for the general solution given
Please can you solve
(3^x)+(4^x)=5^x
Showing all workings and existing solutions
Hi Oyibe. Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider
ua-cam.com/video/l5ef8BNduDs/v-deo.html and other videos in the Olympiad playlist. Cheers
@@SQRTime no 3
the only solution to this problem is x = 2
its a pythagorean triplet
3^2 + 4^x = 5^2
9+16=25
there is no other solutions for this
@@forze9727 can you solve it without thinking of the Pythagorean theorem?
2:55 I'm very sad that papa Flammy don't know Russian and misses opportunity to multiply both sides of equation x + 1 = xe by some non-zero constant p.
Benis :DDD
You say good morning
But it's not morning
And it's not good
1/(e-1) ≈ 1/1.72 ≈ 0.6
Weirdly my guestimating just based on the nature of log and knowing a few values(mostly that ln(0.5)=-0.69 and ln(1)=0) was 0.5, so I was very close with a guess.
This is a good problem to challenge students to apply logarithmic properties and see if they understand the process.
still can't get over how this man writes natural logs as "log" and not "ln". I was taught that a log without a base was base 10
same here
i smell 'math done wrong gone right'
sadly not :p
@@PapaFlammy69 you could do that tho, for example with sin(x+1) = sin(x) + 1 or other functional equations like that. Maybe even shit like sin(x + y) = sin(x) + sin(y)
Interesting generalization: replace 1 by n x n identity matrix and x by positive definite n x n matrix
Hi Monke. Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider
ua-cam.com/video/l5ef8BNduDs/v-deo.html and other videos in the Olympiad playlist. Cheers
@@SQRTime no 2
x+1=x+e
-x on both sides
1=e
DNE
Hi Jakub. Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider
ua-cam.com/video/l5ef8BNduDs/v-deo.html and other videos in the Olympiad playlist. Cheers
DADDY CHILL
Love being early to vids. Still can barely understand this but you’re entertaining enough to keep me watching
Every Algebra student that made this mistake says yes it is.
Wait, is this assuming log is base e? otherwise, how would this make sense?
yes
Generalize the function.
Well i almost solved it slightly drunk in my mind, but i got 1/1-e instead of 1/e-1 cause i forgot the last step.
Then i solved it on paper and got (1/(e-1))
Hi Neutronen. Thanks for sharing. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider
ua-cam.com/video/l5ef8BNduDs/v-deo.html and other videos in the Olympiad playlist. Cheers
I thought there were no elementary solutions, that you had to express it like W_0 something.
it ≠ okay
it ≈ bad
Bruh, using log(x) for base e.....Jens I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed
Assalamuaikum warahmatullahi wa barakatuh....
2:00 okay so if it is the „NATURAL LOGARITHM of x, the ln x” then why the heck do you write it as a decimal logarithm as log x it is so disturbing teally please stop
cause I'm a mathematician.
Exponentions
That feeling when the purpose of a video is ad )
Where is the Euler's "Formula" shirt?
link in the description
😀
E
E
Unfortunately, the provided solution is not correct. log refers to logarithm with base 10 and ln refers to logarithm with base e. The correct solutions is therefore 1/9.
It all depends on context. For mathematicians, most times you talk about logarithms you talk about the natural logarithm because it’s more useful in the context of calculus. For engineers, most times you talk about log base 10 because it’s more important to discuss orders of magnitude. For computer scientists, most times you talk about log base 2 because you work with binary systems. In each study, you see it just referred to as log, but so long as the context is understood, then there really isn’t any error. There’s really no use in being that pedantic.
Jens has an irrational fear of writing ln for log base e for some reason, so on this channel log means ln.
No idea why that is the case though, it mildly triggers me tbf
Cause I'm a mathematician
Yeah in the field of mathematical research you will more often than not find the natural log written as log(), not so much as ln().
Why would someone choose an ambiguous term that takes longer to write over an unambiguous term that is easier to write? It seems silly.