Thanks for stopping by! vcubingx is a youtube channel centered around creating educational math content. I use animations to teach math intuitively, without heavy reliance on formulas and memorization.
Just for general interest, here are a few examples of syntax vs semantics. Consider "The tree ate a banana". It's syntactically valid, but it doesn't mean anything. Or, "Is a dog conscious ?". It's also syntactically valid, but it doesn't mean anything until we decide what "conscious" means. Or, "Does the past still exist ?". It doesn't mean anything until we decide what "exist" means.
put a third equation instead of the 1st and the 2nd equations to get a general solution of pressured moving fluidizing materiales like today? perpendicularity is true for 4 dimensions except for what is zeroth vector time!
In your example, you need to go at least mod 7, to use 6 carrier packets. When you go mod 5, zero and five are equivalent, so f(0) and f(5) are automatically the same.
Yeah, it's a little more simple than that. There's always more numbers. If there were a finite number of primes, you multiply them all up, you add one to it, it proves there's always going to be more numbers, therefore more primes. It's due to the nature of infinity. Generally, Euclid adds up the primes, 2, 3, 5, 7 you multiply them all up, you add one to it, it shows there's always going to be more numbers that are possible to count. It's probably the missing form in our modern logic, that we can't comprehend how this could be a proof anymore. And calculus has a similar proof with a missing premise. In fact, higher forms of logic function not from having the whole set of data, but by making true inferences from it, due to the patterns we find.
what? Euclid's proof is still accepted, but it simply tells us there are infinitely many primes, it tells us nothing about their frequency. The proof you gave is is much worse and weaker and totally irrelevant beause of how basic it is
@@akaakaakaak5779 What I said is Euclid's proof. I didn't say a word about their frequency. That's getting into Riemann's hypothesis, which is way too advanced for me.
@@BKNeifert Your argument implicitly relies on some frequencies. Saying that there's an infinitude of numbers doesn't really say much about the properties of the numbers themselves. For example, there are infinitely many even numbers, but the set of even numbers contains only one prime number - 2. Similarly, there are infinitely many multiples of 3, 5, and so on. There are infinitely many multiples of 6 without any primes whatsoever. So, we have arithmetic progressions (infinitely many numbers) that may contain only one prime number or no primes at all. However, there are also arithmetic progressions with infinitely many primes (Dirichlet's theorem). Without Dirichlet's theorem, proving that there's an infinite number of primes starting from arithmetic progressions is not straightforward. Euclid's proof is elementary: all it relies on is that 1) if we have a number, we can always increase it by 1 (it is crucial that we add one) and get another number, 2) if a number is not divisible by another number, then we have a remainder, and 3) subtle trick with adding precisely 1, not anything else.
@@mishaerementchouk You don't understand infinity. It's okay, not many people do. But, by consequence of there being infinite numbers, there will be infinite primes. That's just how it works. Like, unfortunately, I predicted this crisis would arise. You're just going to have to trust the fact that we know there's infinite primes, because there's infinite numbers. It's not any more complicated than that. It really isn't. And it is a crisis, because people are getting more dull. Even Calculus, it's proven by a similar leap in logic. If you can't understand it, that's fine. But you're not going to touch the answer, and that's going to take a little bit of faith to understand and get to the right answer.
@@BKNeifert You made a statement to the effect that from the infinite extendability of numbers follows an infinite number of primes: "there's always going to be more numbers, therefore more primes." I provided examples of infinite series of numbers ("there's always going to be more numbers") that contain only one prime or no primes at all ("therefore more primes" turns out to be false). These examples demonstrate that from the mere infinitude doesn't follow much.
I've read about Reed Solomon before but everyone either just talks about the polynomials or just talks about the matrix algebra, this is the only explanation I've seen that elegantly bridges that gap. This should be taught in college!
I had so many 'aha' moments in this video I lost count! I'm convinced that it is possible to learn any concept- if it's broken down into its simplistic components
Is this true?: In every other resources I have only met an activation function, which is an activation function in a single neuron, so it is a R -> R function. But in order to calculate softmax, you need the vector in the y neurons (the output of the last linear calculation). So it is basically applied on a layer, not just on one value.
Great video, really like how you explained it! Just a remark on the final example - using 5 as an input in a mod 5 example shouldn't be done as it is the same as using 0 as an input - so if you didn't have the luck to loose the package 0, you'd end up with only 2 points (one being the superposition of input 0 and 5 which didn't get lost) and wouldn't be able to reconstruct the rest.
Yeah, but you didn't tell us how exactly they know those were the packets that were lost, because you say "let's assume", but what if we don't assume? And what if instead of losing, the data is modified? how do you know that packet was modified, because you said that is used on qr and barcode. where a single white pixels group could be shaded by a spot or a black pixels group could be over lightened
Im astonished at how good your explainations were, and how bad that other dude's were omg Like: "Ah, yes, to derive this equation we are going go define the equation in terms of q-hat, and then use Leibniz rule, if you dont know that go watch a tutorial" My sweet brother, why did you think i came here looking for???
As someone who has taken a course in continuum physics people have no idea just how much this video leaves out. Ignoring how much mathematical foundation behind the equations, this video leaves out, more importantly the navier-stokes equations aren't just for fluids. They also give rise to the wave equation and can even be used to explain earthquakes.
