No video :(

Newton's method and Omega Constant

Подписаться 1,3 млн

Просмотров 254 тыс.

50% 1

Start learning today such as the Newton's method, click brilliant.org/... to check out Brillant.org. First 200 people to sign up will get 20% off your annual premium subscription!
Newton's Method: brilliant.org/...
🔑 If you enjoy my videos, then you can click here to subscribe www.youtube.co...
🏬 Shop math t-shirt & hoodies: teespring.com/...
10% off with the code "TEESPRINGWELCOME10"
😎 IG: / blackpenredpen
☀️ Twitter: / blackpenredpen
Equipment:
👉 Expo Markers (black, red, blue): amzn.to/2T3ijqW
👉 The whiteboard: amzn.to/2R38KX7
👉 Ultimate Integrals On Your Wall: teespring.com/...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Thanks to ALL my lovely patrons for supporting my channel and believing in what I do**
AP-IP Ben Delo Marcelo Silva Ehud Ezra 3blue1brown Joseph DeStefano
Mark Mann Philippe Zivan Sussholz AlkanKondo89 Adam Quentin Colley
Gary Tugan Stephen Stofka Alex Dodge Gary Huntress Alison Hansel
Delton Ding Klemens Christopher Ursich buda Vincent Poirier Toma Kolev
Tibees Bob Maxell A.B.C Cristian Navarro Jan Bormans Galios Theorist
Robert Sundling Stuart Wurtman Nick S William O'Corrigan Ron Jensen
Patapom Daniel Kahn Lea Denise James Steven Ridgway Jason Bucata
Mirko Schultz xeioex Jean-Manuel Izaret Jason Clement robert huff
Julian Moik Hiu Fung Lam Ronald Bryant Jan Řehák Robert Toltowicz
Angel Marchev, Jr. Antonio Luiz Brandao SquadriWilliam Laderer Natasha Caron Yevonnael Andrew Angel Marchev Sam Padilla ScienceBro Ryan Bingham
Papa Fassi Hoang Nguyen Arun Iyengar Michael Miller Sandun Panthangi
Skorj Olafsen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
💪 If you would also like to support this channel and have your name in the video description, then you could become my patron here / blackpenredpen
Thank you,
blackpenredpen

Опубликовано:

22 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 346

@ffggddss 6 лет назад

#YAY . . . and thanks for another wonderful excursion through some of math's byways! A little extension of this subject: This method is sometimes called the "tangent method," because it uses the tangent to the graph, to home in on a zero of the function. It requires finding the derivative of the function; but sometimes, it's difficult or impossible to calculate the derivative. In such cases, there's what's sometimes called the "secant method." In this method, you need 2 starting points, not just one (& it helps greatly if they bracket the target; that is, if one of them gives f(x) < 0 and the other gives f(x) > 0). Then you just evaluate the function itself at x₁ and x₂ and draw a straight line (the "secant") between (x₁, f(x₁)) and (x₂, f(x₂)), and solve the equation of that line for y=0. Call this new x, "x₃" and now use x₂ and x₃ to find the next x, etc. In each iteration, you discard the "older" of the two guesses you have, make the newer one the 'new' older one, and the newly generated guess becomes the newer one. The downsides are: (1) You have to keep track of 2 current 'guesses,' instead of just 1, and (2) Convergence to the zero is a bit slower. The upsides are: (1) You have only 1 function to evaluate each time, not 2. (2) You don't need to take the derivative of your function Interesting exercise to try: bprp started by showing that there must be a zero between x=0 and x=1. Try applying the secant method, using these two points as your starters. Note that there's an advantage to using the one that gets f(x) closer to 0, as your "2nd," or, latest, guess. Compare the rates of convergence of these two methods. Fred

@blackpenredpen 5 лет назад

Thank you for the detail explanation as always!!

@emmanueljosephcomargo3012 5 лет назад

Did you just explained my numerical methods class lol

@marcushendriksen8415 3 года назад

There's also the more basic bisection method, which is slower but is guaranteed to converge.

@ffggddss 3 года назад

@@marcushendriksen8415 Yes! In fact, in the days before home computers & handheld electronic scientific calculators, a method that was taught for this, was basically the decimal form of bisection - you'd bracket the zero, say, with consecutive integers, n and n+1; interpolate based on f(x) at each of those; then bracket the new x-value with consecutive tenths; interpolate again; etc., to the desired accuracy. It had someone's name attached to it, that I can't recall. Fred

@ffggddss 3 года назад

@@marcushendriksen8415 I just remembered the name (of the decimal version). It was called Horner's Method. Fred

@Abdega 5 лет назад

Wow, Newton sure knew a ton!

@blackpenredpen 5 лет назад

Definitely.

@jarjuicemachine 4 года назад

Very underrated

@ffggddss 3 года назад

@Abdega: I see what you did there! Fred

@evanparsons123 3 года назад

And how!

@mzadro7 3 года назад

Dum dum, tch

@shangxu5557 6 лет назад

So pretty much, you're saying, when faced with a hard equation, just go off on a tangent a bunch of times?

@yasu0main885 6 лет назад

shang xu more or less

@ffggddss 6 лет назад

Hah! Yes. But bprp didn't say it; Newton (and Raphson) did! Fred

@アヤミ 5 лет назад

Definitely yes lmao

@jarjuicemachine 4 года назад

The function must be continuous

@taatuu25 6 лет назад

"Is it really so hard?" "if Ω*e^Ω = 1, then Ω^(e^Ω) = 1/e" ..Yes, yes it is

@mokouf3 3 года назад

For Ω*e^Ω = 1, we can know: 1: e^Ω = 1/Ω 2: ln(Ω) + Ω = 0, ln(Ω)/Ω = -1 Ω^(e^Ω) = Ω^(1/Ω) = e^(ln(Ω)/Ω)= e^-1 = 1/e This requires patience to prove but not that hard.

@rarebeeph1783 2 года назад

@@mokouf3 easier proof, if Ω*e^Ω = 1: 1: Ω = 1/e^Ω Ω^(e^Ω) = 1/(e^Ω)^(e^Ω) = 1/e^(Ω*e^Ω) = 1/e^1 = 1/e

@mokouf3 2 года назад

@@rarebeeph1783 I like your proof.

@stevethecatcouch6532 6 лет назад

Back in the stone age, the first useful program I wrote in FORTRAN was an implementation of the Newton method for finding the zeros of polynomials.

@blackpenredpen 6 лет назад

Steve the Cat Couch The Stone Age for me was "Visual Basic". And I wrote a tic tac toe program. Lol

@StephenMarkTurner 6 лет назад

Yup, Waterloo Fortran IV (Watfiv), about 1979.

@blackpenredpen 6 лет назад

I actually have never heard of that until you two mentioned it...

@StephenMarkTurner 6 лет назад

Yes, Watfor was Waterloo Fortan. The successor was Fortran 4 (IV), hence the 'fiv' pun in the name. Then came Fortan 77, I think

@ffggddss 6 лет назад

+ Stephen Turner: Yes, FORTRAN 77. Then FORTRAN 90. My computer teeth were cut on ALGOL 60. And as a kid, I watched my dad coding in FORTRAN II, using specially printed coding pads, because everything had to be column-controlled. I think he actually started out in FORTRAN I - or more likely, pre-FORTRAN, 1951 or earlier. I was a tot, so I don't recall. All I know is, his first computer experience was before there was magnetic core memory. Fred

@faith3174 6 лет назад

This is really a great introduction to the Newton-Raphson method. And if anyone knew about it already, it's also a great introduction to the Lambert W function. So it's a great video overall!

@u.v.s.5583 5 лет назад

You are a great tutor and a blessing, man! Thank you, I wish you were around 20 years ago to enhance my calculus experience!

@blackpenredpen 5 лет назад

U.V. S. Thanks. I am a teacher : )

@xCorvus7x 6 лет назад

For the Newton method to work better, you can just analyse the function for its maxima and minima (since you can derive it, that should be possible). Then pick an x0 such that f(x0) is between a negative local minimum and a positive local maximum or, if there is only one local extremum, an x0 close to that. Of course, you can still end up in loops.

@abderrazekchaouachi6409 4 года назад

I am a retired academic inspector of maths in Tunisia. I have a great admiration for your enthousiasm and courage. You can be an inspiration for every future mathematician

@gideonmaxmerling204 4 года назад

fun fact, lowercase Ω is ω, so it kind looks like a w.

@brahmandsaraswat867 4 года назад

Finally found a channel, who's narrator is a great teacher. You taught me, numerical analysis, in just 20 minutes, wow.

@DashRevoTV 6 лет назад

"That's because...it's too boring. Let's use Newton's Method." Hahahahah exactly what my teacher told us.

@danielfajardo963 6 лет назад

Great video! It would have been great to mention that Omega is trascendental :)

@u.v.s.5583 5 лет назад

Not that it would be a great surprise.

@LunizIsGlacey Год назад

13:52 x_3 was almost an Euler-Mascheroni jumpscare lol

@MouhibBayounes 4 месяца назад

xD i felt the same way 😂

@kamoroso94 6 лет назад

I love this video! This is my favorite problem in math. I came across this problem in high school by my own and couldn't figure it out right away. Eventually I came up with the idea of approximating it with e^-e^-e^…. Once I found the approximation, I googled the number and found out it was called the Omega constant, which is really cool. And it mentioned the Lambert W function, but I didn't really understand it at the time. I just love this problem because it opened my eyes to the fact you can't really solve everything with regular algebra :p

@guest_informant 6 лет назад

Do you know about tying a goat to the edge of a circular field so that it can eat half the grass. From memory I think that only has an approximate solution as well.

@kamoroso94 6 лет назад

@@guest_informant oo I have not! Now I wanna try it. So you'd be solving for the length of the rope and the radius of the field, or something?

@guest_informant 6 лет назад

+Kyle Amoroso I first came across this about 30 years ago. Googling turned up Wikipedia ("It was first published in 1748 in England, in the yearly publication The Ladies Diary: or, the Woman’s Almanack."(!)), Wolfram, stackexchange and an xkcd discussion. There is no exact solution. This formulation is from the xkcd discussion: *You have a goat tied to the fence of a circular paddock. The paddock has a radius of 100M. You want the goat to eat HALF of the grass.* *How long does the rope need to be?* Assume an even covering of grass, and don't worry about the goat's neck length etc.

@ffggddss 6 лет назад

+ Guest Informant: That sounds like it's related to a problem I ran across in astronomy. You have a solar eclipse that will be partial where you are. You know the apparent angular diameters of both Sun & Moon (they're generally *not* equal!), and you know, at maximum eclipse (or at any particular time during it), what fraction of the Sun's apparent *diameter* will be encroached on by the Moon. Assuming both bodies to be exactly spherical, what fraction of the Sun's apparent *area* will be covered? Fred

@efulmer8675 Год назад

Another Omega Constant that's also really cool is Chaitin's Constant which is defined as the probability that a given program will halt given the capacity to run correctly, but because of its nature and the relation to the Halting Problem, it is uncomputable and 'non-guessable' but they are represented with the capital Omega when discussing them to have a nice symbol to work with.

@Aruthicon 6 лет назад

He stares into our soul each time he looks up the values of the approximation to W(1). Also, "Start learning toady" - description

@blackpenredpen 6 лет назад

Tommy Thach lol thanks.

@Aruthicon 6 лет назад

That was a fast reply, thank *you*!

@blackpenredpen 6 лет назад

: )

@EpicFishStudio 6 лет назад

because the function is so kink. it makes mathematicians _lip smack_ *moist*

@ZackJRich 6 лет назад

Thank you!! 3 years I have tried to find a way to solve the equation: 3^x = x^2 And I knew the answer because I used a graphic calculator but I wanted to find a mathematical way of solving the problem and I did using this method!! I asked my profesors for help but they told me it can't be done and that these problems are solved by computers So, thank you for the enlightment

@ffggddss 6 лет назад

Hmmm, looks like it has only one real solution, and it's negative .... somewhere between -1 and -½. Your professors were right if your question was taken as, "How do you solve that equation symbolically?" Numerically, it's quite soluble, and Newton's Method works just fine; so does the "secant" method. Fred

@ZackJRich 6 лет назад

ffggddss I knew there was a solution because graphs of x^2 and 3^x have an intersection Question I asked my professors was simply "If x^2 equals 3^x, how do I find x?" Too bad they don't teach us these very usefull and interesting methods in highschool

@ffggddss 6 лет назад

Some places *do* teach these sorts of things. Too many do not. The way you asked, should have elicited, *at least,* something like, "There's no analytic method, but there are many numerical techniques to solve that." Fred

@gamebro6337 3 года назад

WOW this is my first time heard about Omega constant... so cool~

@leonardromano1491 6 лет назад

Simply do O(n+1)=exp(-O(n)) with O(0) close to the solution (for example 1 works), this converges quite fast towards the correct solution. This method works for slowly changing functions as O(n+1) and O(n) are equal as n->infinity.

@user-qv4rm5pf4n 5 месяцев назад

You can check OEIS sequences A370490 and A370491 to see how you can obtain an infinite series for the Omega constant using Whittaker's root series formula. I used Whittaker's root series formula to obtain infinite series for other mathematical constants (like 1/e, plastic number, Dottie number and ln 2). Sometimes Whittaker's root series formula is a useful alternative to Newton's method. 🙂

@jilow 4 месяца назад

For any functions f and g. We can find where f(x) * g(x) = 1 by solving (fx)^-1 = g(x), so in this case when: 1/x = e^x. ln (1/x) = ln (e^x) natural log boths sides ln(1) - ln (x) = x (log properties) -ln(x) = x (simplify) Doesn't seem as helpful as I'd hoped-- but I did graph it and got x = ~.567 :).

@Davidamp 6 лет назад

16:12 This is just b r i l l i a n t

@OzzlyOsborne 5 лет назад

My first assignment before beginning college had Newton's Method in it, and for our Math program over the summer I ran into lambetW's all the time, and I had no idea what they meant. And now I understand what both mean. Well done thanks for the video.

@ndeleonn 2 года назад

Thanks for the video. I would point out two things: (1) This approximation method is the same as expanding the function in a Taylor series to liner order in (x-xg) where xg is your initial guess, (2) the iteration is very robust so that even a terrible initial guess, xg, will converge rapidly to the answer.

@luisrosano3510 5 лет назад

"When calculus meet analitic geometry and shake hands" Is I.V.T. the Bolzano´s teorem?

@eberthenrique1868 4 года назад

The Bolzanos theorem is an especific case of IVT

@sugarfrosted2005 6 лет назад

Not loving a computable number being called Omega. :3

@Gold161803 6 лет назад

I knew there would be a Chaitin reference somewhere in the comments :)

@Jenab7 6 лет назад

Maybe you will find x(i) very close to a local maximum or local minimum of the function before you find the root. Then your x(i+1) goes.... whoosh, far away. If the problem is persistent because the root and the extremum are very close to each other, then you will need to use *Father Wiggly's Famous Reverse Interpolation Bisection Method.* This is a combination of bisection method, to find a small interval that contains the root, and then (after the root is tightly contained) a 2nd degree Lagrange interpolating polynomial is used to estimate the value of the root even more accurately. I wrote an algorithm using this method to find the eccentric anomaly of a hyperbolic transfer orbit after being given the mean anomaly and the eccentricity. *Father Wiggly's Famous Reverse Interpolation Bisection Method* works when Newton's Method, Danby's Method, and similar methods using higher order Taylor series fail because of skittering off the roots of the derivatives. Father Wiggly was my cat for a long time. I named the method for him.

@nikitakipriyanov7260 4 года назад

Whoa, this is the solid basement to explore a whole big world of fractals, Newton basins!

@nikitakipriyanov7260 4 года назад

O.k., I've managed to put this Lambert W into my fractal rendering program. So, here is goes. The image obtained when solving x exp(x) = 1 with a newton method. The color is by root reached, the shading is: the more iterations were needed to converge, the darker point is. There is a whole bunch of different complex roots (the Lambert W is a multivalued function, the equation in question in theory has infinite number of roots), but I've had only 6 base colors cycled, so different colors are different roots for sure, but same color doesn't mean same root. Nevertheless, a big basins of same color really converge to the same single root. imgur.com/a/OwB2OPr

@sparshsharma5270 7 месяцев назад

Recently had Newton Raphson method in Approximations in my 4th semester. The method is easy but never knew about Omega constant. Thanks for that.

@pablojulianjimenezcano4362 6 лет назад

I finally understand Newton's method, thanks you so much!!!! :) #Yay

@blackpenredpen 6 лет назад

Pablo Julián Jiménez Cano yayyyyy!!!!

@WisdomVendor1 6 лет назад

if you are into functions, which means you have a feel for them and their general shape, then all you need do is graph a few points around a suspected zero of that function and a short bit of interpolation and you will have the zero. Newton's method is the most complicated way I've seen to get this accomplished.

@DutchMathematician 6 лет назад

+WisdomVendor1 If you interpolate between two points on the graph that bracket the true root, then you are essentially applying one iteration of the so-called "secant method" (which can be reguarded as the Newton(-Raphson) method where the derivative is replaced/approximated by a finite difference). In my (humble) opinion, this does not lead to a formula that is (essentially) easier ... As a concept, I agree with you.

@alexismignon7839 Год назад

I didn’t know this thing. Thanks for showing it.

@cameronspalding9792 6 лет назад

Making zero the subject makes things so much more convenient: we can apply Newton’s method on f(x) if we want to solve f(x)=0, we can apply factorisation; the roots to f(x) are intersections of the x-axis and as |x|=0 iff x=0 m: the roots to f(x) are the points such that |f(x)|=0

@emmanueljosephcomargo3012 5 лет назад

This is the first lesson in my Numerical Methods and I didn't learn it til today! Lol PS. I already finished the course lmao

@ZipplyZane 3 года назад

Is there any chance that W(x) can be written in terms of Ω? It otherwise seems odd to have a constant when you could just write W(1).

@ZipplyZane 5 лет назад

The omega constant always felt redundant to me when you can just use W(1). If we didn't have it, we could actual use omega(1), which looks more like a predefined function, as it uses a Greek letter, like pi(x) and gamma(x).

@davidseed2939 4 года назад

note that if you are measuring schemes which converge rapidly you should take note of the number of operations in each iteration. the following scheme is obtained from asimple rearrangement of the original equation. It takes more iterations by fewer operations x(n+1) = exp(-x(n)). very easy to implement on a calculator just press [+/-] and [exp] alternately a dozen times. since we know root is between 0 and 1 , start at 0.5, Note that inverting the equation to give x(n+1) =-ln(x(n)) . this is unstable. and although this can be annalysed ( ref “radius of convergence) its often easier just to try it and it it doesn't converge then invert the equation. For equations which are difficult to differentiate. eg it might be a complicated equation or just a table or results that you interpolate with cubic splies. then the chord method is best. start with two points either side orf a root find where the chord intersects the axis and use that as a new point. replace the point that is the same side of the x-axis

@Pete-Prolly 5 лет назад

Not tired of scratching my head and looking to RU-vid for help... not even close "Tutor guy" I have "BPRP guy!!"😀

@idrisShiningTimes 2 года назад

I cannot really express how I'm thankful to you. You explained this in such a beautiful manner that now I can work with Lambert W functions for Reals very easily. Thank you BPRP o7

@Pianissimo311 2 года назад

13:52 you dont need to be so tense, you can read the value showing us, thats ok 😂😂

@sugarfrosted2005 6 лет назад

This might be an ok thing to introduce householder methods in general.

@kieronsultana3287 5 лет назад

1 question, how can you have an inverse function (called "w" in the video) when the graph is not a function. A function is when it is one to one or many to one mapping. If the graph of the complicated expression does not follow these types of mapping it is not a function => it does not have an inverse function. Thanks!

@unfetteredparacosmian 4 года назад

There's really two W functions, W0 and W1, but there's only one for positive x

@supercr33p3r7 2 года назад

Man, I was coming here to explain, but both of the explanations I had in mind we're beaten to by you two.

@vishalmishra3046 5 лет назад

Use Newton's method after taking ln (natural log) of both sides => x + log(x) = 0 => converges faster with fewer and lower computational-cost iterations.

@emanuellandeholm5657 2 года назад

Nice, and pretty close to the Euler-Mascheroni constant.

@gergodenes6360 6 лет назад

I have never heard of Newton's methood, it's so cool. I love calculus so much. Thanks! #YAY

@CT-pi2gl Год назад

I solved the question in the thumbnail image by expanding the function into x(1+x+x^2/2...)-1=0, and then using Newton's Method with only those first 3 terms. It converged very quickly!

@RobinHillyard 2 года назад

Just to add a little history, Newton’s buddy Halley (of the comet) derived an approximation method involving, additionally, the second derivative. Householder generalized these methods to include the third, fourth, etc. derivatives.

@isobar5857 4 года назад

When I did maths , ages ago, I recall that there is a way to determine legitimate starting values for the Newton Raphson method that will always ensure convergence, I will have to look up my old notes.

@alanturingtesla 6 лет назад

Well, this is great, with this W we can now actually find an inverse for all those exponential-polynomial mixes!

@alanturingtesla 6 лет назад

In terms of W, of course.

@volodymyrgandzhuk361 4 года назад

This is how I solve it. xe^x=1 xe^x-1=0 f(x)=xe^x-1 The function is continuous on all the real numbers, so I can proceed like this: f(0)=-10 This means that the equation has exactly one solution and that this solution is between 0 and 1. Here's what I do now: x_1=(0*1.72-1*(-1))/(1.72-(-1))=0.368 Now, I found this value, and I want to know how good it is. For this purpose, I find the corresponding f value, namely: f(x_1)=-0.466

@terapode 6 лет назад

And as always a great video.

@blackpenredpen 6 лет назад

Roberto Miglioli thanks!!!

@davidhitchen5369 3 года назад

A quick and dirty way to solve for this is to solve x = exp(-x) numerically by iterating exp(-x) until it converges on a solution. Seed at 1. The first approximation is 1/e. After 22 iterations it's at 0.56714. It converges way slower than Newton, but if you have a spreadsheet you can set it up and calculate it in seconds.

@DonSolaris 6 лет назад

OMG!! He shrunk the black ball! Is he a voodoo priest or something?

@aniketeuler6443 3 года назад

Really enjoyed as always 😃😃

@goodboyneon 9 месяцев назад

Doaremon music in the background, brings back so many memories!

@papsanlysenko5232 6 лет назад

Can you do a video about logarithmic integral function? or exponential Integral function? Or both?

@neelamgupta5020 Месяц назад

x e^x = 1 take product log on both side W(x e^x) = W(1) x = W(1) x = 0.567143

@brahmandsaraswat867 4 года назад

20:50 That's BRILLIANT

@swajag4653 5 лет назад

You can just equate this as e^x=1/x The point of intersection between e^x & a hyperbola 1/x x belongs to (0,1)

@EtherDais 5 лет назад

You can also represent Omega as an infinite nest of -Ln(-Ln(-Ln(...)))

@XCyclonusX 5 лет назад

Sounds like Lambert just wanted a constant named after himself so he co-opted the Omega constant.

@henriquefraga4486 6 лет назад

that was the function i got at my calculus exam *-*

@ThePeterDislikeShow 2 года назад

I'd like to try and calculate this constant to lots of digits. What are some of the ways that have been used to calculate this? It doesn't look like it has a good power series or such.

@prashanthkumar0 3 года назад

😱😱😱😲😲wow...really genius ....love it... Newtown was an amazing guy ....

@channelbuattv 8 месяцев назад

Surprisingly, the constant has an infinite representation of e^-e^-e^-e^-e^-e^-e^-.... Because it's a solution to x = e^-x and e^x = 1/x

@rob876 6 лет назад

x[n] = exp(-x[n-1]) is another iterative scheme but doesn't converge as fast.

@SuperYoonHo Год назад

Newton=New ton=Knew a Ton!

@woulzername 6 лет назад

!!! No supreme shirt?!!! great vid btw

@blackpenredpen 6 лет назад

lemon Danish that fell on the floor : )

@HARRISHANTH1 5 лет назад

Hi ABCD is a Square. O is a point inside the square such that

@markhughes7927 2 года назад

Fascinating!

@ThePhenomBot 6 лет назад

Doaremon tone in the starting ❤️

@nischay4760 6 лет назад

Yea :D

@hklausen 4 года назад

finally I understand Newtons method . Thanks :-)

@xamzx9281 6 лет назад

on x_3 i thought it was going to be "y" which equal 0.577

@vitakyo982 6 лет назад

Omega = 1/e^(1/e^(1/e^(1/e...

@ignacioignacio1328 Год назад

I need solve this e^x-ln(x+3) Thanks!

@Rundas69420 6 лет назад

Nice one. Is it possible to get the formula for X sub n in explicit form? Would be nice.

@brunoalejandroandrades354 6 лет назад

Crystal-Math it'd be pretty cool, but I don't think u can, otherwise u would have a nice limit def for omega, and I believe bprp would've pointed it out

@vitakyo982 6 лет назад

1/e^(1/e^(1/e^(1/e^(1/e .... It's an infinite serie .

@stevenwilson5556 3 года назад

This was a good explanation to how to get omega, but you didn't talk much about what this function is useful for. Please consider mentioning that in future if you know why certain functions are helpful or useful for some application.

@diegoalgo1296 2 года назад

I recall from class that we called it the Newton-Raphson method, or something like that, because credit where credit is due and all😅

@markolazarevic4209 5 лет назад

Can you do a video on how to use Lambert W function to evaluate solution for like xe^x=n and x^x=n where n is different than 1

@blackpenredpen 5 лет назад

Yea, you can check out my new videos for them!

@mohamedelouajrachi66 2 года назад

C'est important .thanks

@alexismandelias 6 лет назад

I'm Greek. I write capital Ω all the time. He makes them better...

@nischay4760 6 лет назад

You don’t bother to make them good because you make them all the time.

@yaleng4597 5 лет назад

W(1) Done

@karstenmeinders4844 6 лет назад

I wonder if there is an algebraic expression for Omega, not only the approximation shown in the video.Great stuff nevertheless!

@blackpenredpen 6 лет назад

Karsten Meinders W(1)

@trangium 6 лет назад

How about a series, only using + - * /, roots, and logs?

@averagecornenjoyer6348 3 года назад

well for the first equation i just thought of using lambert W and get W(1) as the zero thanks to your videos

@ramzimay9669 5 лет назад

Thank you Good Lecture

@almaska82 3 года назад

You had to find the second derivative to use this formula. From its sign depends on the left or right, you need to start the approximation.

@abdallahamouda6633 6 лет назад

From where do you have the t shirt?

@warrickdawes7900 6 лет назад

It's also fun that the solution to x.ln(x)=1 is 1/W(1).

@subhanasim4512 3 года назад

Has a normal way of solving xe^x =1 through calculator. "That's boring" we do it by the long method still with the calculator cuz that's exciting

@moonwatcher2001 4 года назад

Awesome, thanks!!!

@heathledger9939 4 года назад

Doraemon song is amazing 😂

@avral4148 Год назад

Thanks, could you give a quick response if x*exp(-x) = 0.9 can be solved with Newton method? Likely it is not, I have wrong numbers?

@brunoamezcua3112 6 лет назад

amazing video, as always

@gdash6925 3 года назад

Now i can finally can find an approximation for W(2)

@bradycall1889 Год назад

This dude is super smart

@captaintwist7005 4 года назад

loved it

@arielfuxman8868 3 года назад

What about getting a second order approximation for the function using the second derivative and getting a faster converging approximation?

@giorgiomicaglio 6 лет назад

Awesome video, blackpenredpen😍🔝🔝

@RobinHillyard 2 года назад

I thought for a moment that the root was going to converge on the Euler-Mascheroni constant (0.57721…j. But they are remarkably similar in value.

@ashutoshanand2931 6 лет назад

{x} , [x] , x are in Geometric Progression. Solve for x. ( {x} is fractional function and [x] is greatest integer function ) #Yay

@GellyGelbertson 6 лет назад

Ashutosh Anand let a={x}, b=[x], a+b=x. if it's in a geometric progression, then b/a=(a+b)/b, or b^2-ab-a^2=0. using the quadratic formula eventually gives b=phi*a, where phi is the golden ratio. since a