Exactly this is the way I understand & this is also the way how I can explain stuff. lol And this is the exact way professors think I know no shit & they end up giving me passing grades only :P
(continued:) You seem to mention this briefly at around 11:00, but the previous minute or so of your video is at least suggestive of a wrong interpretation of the Nyquist- Shannon theorem.
The Nyquist part of your video at least suggests that an ever increasing sampling frequency reconstructs the original sinewave better and better. This is not correct: frequencies below the Nyquist frequency can be reconstructed perfectly, however 'pointy' the graph (what you call 'rendition') looks. The last doubling of the sampling frequency in your video adds no necessary information for reconstructing the original sine wave.
He does not explain this well at all, he seems to think that the wave is sampled in an inaccurate steppy waveform, which is false, he missed almost the entire point of the Nyquist theorem, the part where you interpolate the get the exact waveform in between the sample points, rendering any further sampling (in between) useless. It's cute that you put Lassie in there, but what good is it if you're explaining it wrong.
George Rosebush I commented on this some 2 years ago and I'm surprised to see this video, which is, if not wrong, at least very confusing, is still online.
