Відео

What i find anoying is: even if there is an unmoved mover - religios than abuse the 💩 out of that. N keep moving the goal posts. Unmoved mover for sure (like 10¹⁰%) does not condone slavery, stoning ppl to death for either being disobediant to yo parents or for sticking body parts where they dong belong. I.e. yhwh, jesus, allah are NOT it. Period.

Why does the base have to be eulers number? Why can’t it be any other number?

Could a Thomist refute mereological nihilism for me please?

one thing that I'm not sure why is the single reflection itself not a rotation. isn't it already clear that the reflection itself is a rotation. is the double reflection meant to be a general way to say given any to vectors we can rotate another vector about the angle that those two vectors form?

with the SLERP formula, what if θ=π? then the expression is undefined, so what do you do then?

In the actual multivariate normal, x and y can be correlated (linearly dependent) so that instead of all points in a circle being equally likely, it's all points in an ellipse. Does the math still work out in that case?

Well, being is one, beings share in the One being which is God, the essence of things are diverse but there existence is God's existence.

Thank you for your very clearly explained proofs!

Thank you for this very clear version of the proof. : )

The essence-existence distinction seems to be reifying existence as something that can be subtracted from a thing leaving it only with its essence, but that is putting the cart before the horse, existence is a precondition for things to have any properties at all. "That in which essence is distinct from existence has a cause of its existence in the here and now" Doesn't this assume that the default state of things is to go out of existence and there must be something that prevents it at any moment, what is the justification for that?

What I don’t get about these arguments is how do you choose which principles observed in nature can be extrapolated to be fundamental, by my lights “everything that moves is move by another” is at best as defensible as “anything that moves another does it by moving”.

Really wonderful video. Thanks.

THANKS A LOT FOR EXCELLENT VIDEO!!!

Dusty Slay talking about a bridge of asses brought me here 😂

I like the video. The series is divergent in one sense (pointwise convergence): choose a real x and try to sum the series, it doesn't work. In another sense it does converge to something resembling a bonafide mathematical object called the Dirac comb. This is a linear functional acting on smooth functions of rapid decay. It is also periodic. This is the basis for more remarkable identities.

A really intresting introduction to chebyshev polynomials.

This video is 7years old and still many universities didn’t add this important course in their curricula in engineering.

Idk if anyone will ever read this, but alas. The way Euclid presents this theorem seems convoluted to me, and I have always been a bit dissatisfied by it. It is unclear what Euclid actually means when he speaks of the sum of two right angles, because he would not have considered such a sum to be an angle itself. (See his definition of angle) If one considers straight angles to be a thing, this theorem becomes trivial and hardly even requires a proof, because it is obvious that both of the sums are equal to the same straight angle, and this way you can actually give meaning to a sum of two right angles, their sum being a straight angle. However with my conception of angle I still consider the sum of a straight angle with another angle to be meaningless, but such sums do not need to be used to prove the propositions of book I. The concept of angular measure should be treated at a later stage.

I am a person who has loved things in Mathematics since H.S (in the 1960’s) and had never heard of the Lambert W function until a few weeks ago (I love Mathematics, but am rather slow at learning it Things are not Blinding Glimpses of the Obvious to me). I have seen several UA-cam videos talking about the Lambert W function, but they did not explain it well (they seemed to be confused about it, also). This is an excellent explanation of it. I enjoyed listening to a coherent explanation of its properties. I wonder if you could do a video of the history of this function. Until then, I’ll google it. Thank you for this. I’m subscribing to your channel…..

Why is it that simple being can "communicate any being". I appreciate the argument but this part seems like a bare assertion.

beautiful

I see a lot of comments saying that "Why do we need two reflections, when one reflection can get us the rotation we need" : Well, when you are applying geometric products, you wont be doing it on a single vector, as show in this video, you will be doing it on more complex shapes, like a triangle, so lets look at a triangle, its made of 3 points ( 3 position vectors ), so now to rotate the triangle we need to rotate each of those points about the origin of rotation, by the same angle, ok, now what do you think will happen if you reflected this triangle once ? you will get a reflected triangle, the reflected triangle looks like the original triangle but it not the same, its like your right hand and left hand, they look the same but if you put one hand over the other you realize that they are not the same, they are just a mirror of each other, that is what one reflection gets you, a mirror object (with some rotation), so the second reflection undo's the mirror effect, leaving you with pure rotation of the shape, that's why you need two reflections, the fact that U and V could be any obituary vectors as long as they have the right angle between them, is just cherry on top of the need for a double reflection. For those of you who still need to draw things or do things by hand, i will give you a workable example. 1- Draw your x-axis and y-axis on paper 2- Pick three points to represent a triangle, the points you pick dont matter as long as the x and y values for each point is positive ( this makes it easy to visualize) 3- Do the above 3 times, so that you have three graphs, graph1 graph2 and graph3 4- in graph1, rotate your triangle 180 degrees anti-clockwise, use your normal protractor means to do it (this will be the correct answer we will use to judge graph2 and graph3) 5 - in graph2, reflect about ( x= 0, y=1) and then (x=-1, y=0) (this is the double reflection result) 6 - in graph3, this is the one reflection example, now i will say that, there is no 1 reflection that will give you the same result as graph1 or graph2, but you are welcome to try, if you find a vector that does that, let me know. I hope this comment gets pinned.

This video series was recommended to me 2 years ago while I was going through an irreligious period in my life. I am now Catholic. Thank you

Thanks so much you really saved me. I could not find anyone who could explain this topic better than this

at 1:31 when you explain so simply the R^2, you have my like on the video

Didnt newton know how to solve quadratic eqs exactly?

Very nice indeed! Great videos and friendly explanations. Are there any other such videos?

Great job!

Many thanks, makes it very easy to follow without excessive effort. This is how one should be taught to retain infomation!

Loved it. And to think that's the just beginning....

Too bad that I have not found you 7 years ago. Great work.

Clone and flip ABC. Superimpose one triangle over the other for a perfect fit. Angles ABC and ACB cover each other perfectly - hence they are equal! Is this a much simpler proof of the Isoceles Theorem?

Fairy tales

Did Parmenides really (35:08) "deny that things are in motion"? To the extent that there are things, I think he would agree that they are (vacuously) in motion; he would just deny that there are things (which is simply the gnostic (not Catholic) way of looking at classical theism, isn't it?).

Is philosophy some bullshit or what?

@Math_oma "I have no idea what you're talking about with a 'static potential' to be frank with you, and your train of thought is very difficult to follow." Static potential is a term I made up to refer to Potential for a state of affairs to remain without change This is a term that applies to both Entities that don't require a concurrent actualizer like god and entities that do require a concurrent actualizer like atoms If we then count static potential as something that always entails an actualizer we would be forced to conclude that nothing is purely actual If you still don't get it maybe a better term to refer to both would be presently actual I wouldn't say that the prime mover's present existence is potential (the prime mover isn't currently reducing from potential to actual )it's actual However it may have a potential to cease to exist or a potential to exist in the past (before being caused to exist) Which it no longer has "I'm very familiar with Newton's first law (many of my videos are on physics), which is a mere description that things will remain at a constant velocity unless acted upon by a force" Exactly "It is not the end of the story in terms of physical account, and does not give a complete account of why things have inertia, i.e. why bodies tend to do this" Gotta be honest I don't know what the heck you are talking about right now Having or not having an account for why inertia is a thing is irrelevant The basic idea is that movement through space is one of the four types of change And their present continuation doesn't rely on anything other than the past cause So it is possible in principle for a past cause to sufficiently account for some present phenomenon Moreover I don't possess the burden of proof You are the one making the knowledge claim that a past cause cannot account for something in the present You need to prove this to me "it doesn't speak about actuality and potentiality per se, but rather 'forces' and 'motion' " I ... Still don't get it "Yes the law of inertia doesn't speak About potentiallity and actuality " But because movement through space is one of the four types of change it can be represented through reduction from potency to act The force that was applied to the ball in the past actualizes the potential for the ball to move at a certain velocity in the present assuming there's nothing to stop the ball's movement "but rather 'forces' and 'motion" The heck are you talking about This would be like saying that my conception isn't a reduction from potency to act Because the statement talks about fertilization and conception "This objection is discussed in Feser's "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" " I have read DR Feser's chapter on the aristotelian proof And No I am not convinced

In 33:20 I see how you arrived at u' expression n the right but I don't understand how that expression is really a rotation of theta degrees

I don't understand how we came to the conclusion that the unactualized actualizer is purely actual It could be unactualized in the sense that it doesn't need a sustaining cause But actualized in the sense that it was caused to exist sometime ago in the past

Thank you!

well explained, very help

It’s been a while since I’ve seen any new content on this channel, and I’m really hoping it isn’t dead. Your videos have been a real inspiration and stepping stone for me to explore my faith intellectually (particularly your series on Classical Theism). While I perfectly understand any real-life events that would interfere, I’d just hate knowing this channel has been abandoned.

excellent pesentation of the derivation. congrats

26:27 An appeal to emotion because of the word “want”? Is this RR guy just pulling out individual words and slapping fallacies on it without examining the context behind it?

Interesting presentation. Although I think there is a hidden assumption, that mas m1 is much greater than m2, so it does not move. The position vector r is defined as the position of mass m2 with respect to m1. In the video is assumed that both masses are accelerated, with opposite direction. However, this means that the position vector r is defined in a non inertial reference system. Therefore, Newton's law has to be corrected with inertia forces. If m1 >> m2 ( as it is the case with the Sun and the Earth, for example) you can neglect the motion of mass m1 and the reference system is inertial. In the general case of two masses of similar mass you have to choose as origin of the reference system the center of mass of both masses. If the two masses are isolated, the center of mass does not move, and this reference system is inertial,

Excellent lectures. thank you.

Thank you twice

Thank you for taking your time and explaining it beautifully!

You earned my subscription. I have been trying to understand the derivation of the Rodrigues Rotation formula for a long time now. Many thanks.

thank u i luv u