Рік тому
КОМЕНТАРІ
@alessiotucci0 5 годин тому
anyone knows where I can find the videos he is talking about?
@oliwoohoo День тому
amazingly good videos/ lectures thank you sooooo much for uploading and letting me have a chance to understand the history of eco[which is so important] better!!! thank you so much
@kevinsavo718 2 дні тому
He sounds like Jonathon Haidt with an accent. Interesting topic.
@richardpolote95 3 дні тому
Me and Reza did our thesis together at state, my dawg right here💪🏾
@retrojames4226 3 дні тому
Your patience with the chalk is admirable.
@BuleriaChk 11 днів тому
Godel's "Theorem" is a complete farce and absolute bullshit. Godel assigns a unique number to all the symbols in real numbers via the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra: e.g., the syntactical symbols "+", "-", "x" (multiplication) as well as the actual numbers and powers (e.g. 3^2). By his criteria, a "proof" consists of a tautology on each side of the equal sign. At first, one might think the statement "3 + 4 = 7" is a "proof", since it can be reduced to a sum of units on either side. But that would be a contradiction, according to Godel, because "3 + 4" has a different Godel Number than "7". So the only "proofs" for Godel are G(wff) = G(wff); any other statement is a contradiction by Godel Number. I call BS - a giant twittering machine built on nothing, see my pdfs on physicsdiscussionforum dot org Remember, you read it here first... :)
@marcusdavenport1590 14 днів тому
This professor is remarkably ignorant yet he's a good talker. If you actually know what you're talking about many of the things he's saying will be marred objectionable but he's got a good voice. I much prefer to be intelligent... Check out Mises institute... The Austrian school of economics lecture on the same material would be so much better...
@Leotagorax 15 днів тому
What is the name of the profesor? Nice lecture!
@wisdomokafor9631 23 дні тому
I don’t get the multiplication part.
@user-ey6oi4xw8r 26 днів тому
It was James Watt's Invention of the Steam Engine. A 500 times increase in the Power output for the whole country. From 20,000 Waterwheels in 1800 to 10,000,000 Steam Engines in 1900 !!!
@haneyguitarinstruction6260 26 днів тому
I just plug in a 5 tick stop and 8 tick target on Ninjatrader
@user-ey6oi4xw8r 28 днів тому
Britain from 1800 to 1900. 20,000 Waterwheels decreased in number. Windmills decreased in number. Englishman Thomas Newcomen's 1,500 Atmospheric Pumps disappeared. Scotsman James Watt's 500 Steam Engines increased in number to 10,000,000 !!! For every SINGLE Waterwheel in 1800 we now have an additional 500 Steam Engines in 1900 !!! That's an increase in Power Capacity and therefore Productive Capacity for the whole country of 500 times !!! In one human lifetime. And there's no need for flowing rivers of water for each one either, so they can be sited anywhere. This WAS the Industrial Revolution. It was a Power Revolution. And it was all due to only one single Invention, James Watt's Invention of the world's first PRACTICAL Steam Powered Engine. Spinning and Weaving boost had nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution , that was due to unfair trading practices.
@OldSloGuy Місяць тому
Back in the mid 1980's I took an extension course at UCLA. I didn't have time to eat a decent meal before class, so I ate out of a vending machine and went up to the Engineering-Math Library before class. I Stumbled on to some IBM Research Journals that were very enlightening. Math PhD's had carefully researched algorithms and presented how they would do it if memory was not constrained. Then, they bastardized the algorithms to squeeze them into crippled computers. Before I finished the course, the friends of the library literally gave away these volumes because they were more than 15 years old and the library had run out of shelf space. So, the bastardized algorithms survived, but the research into what should have been got destroyed. Our algorithms today are simply the patched versions of the bastards. Nobody has ever revisited what should have been. Its simply very awkward settled science, good enough for half a century ago when the bigger IBM 360's had 16K of core.
@FA18_Driver Місяць тому
I just wanna say Doc, as a gamer and enthusiast of graphic processing I am really enjoying your lectures. Thanks so much for posting and sharing information with the world. You’re awesome.
@HarishHarish-dm4uu Місяць тому
mind boggling shit
@khoavo5758 Місяць тому
18:13 I believe it’s HSL and HSV: Hue, Saturation, Lightness/Value. HLV isn’t a thing.
@gasparliboreiro4572 Місяць тому
If someone knows: he didn't really explained how the horizontal scan between endpoints works Like, I know how to go from an x to the other by adding 1 to x and Z-inc to z, but when do you stop? You gotta do all the divisions and calculations for the uvs, rgbs and all of that for the other edge tracker? You only use it as an stopping point! As what is said in this lecture you don't use all that information from the other side I also don't know how to increment the uv coordinates as you go across, again verticaly is easy because you got information from the begining of the edge tracker to the end, but horizontally is a mistery if someone knows, those are my 2 questions - what is the use of the other edge tracker? appart from being an stoping point - how do you increment the uvs as you go across?
@meriquirogaalbarracin2420 Місяць тому
God bles you bro❤😊😊😊
@gasparliboreiro4572 Місяць тому
for antialiasing, can't you see the two points that an edge of a polygon intersects the square of a pixel? knowing those two points you can make the triangle that the polygon is occuping or not occuping in the pixel, knowing the area of the triangle you can get how much of the pixel that point with that color occupies
@jackzhu5094 2 місяці тому
Old Chinese customs did not allow women inheritance rights so they were not favoured as men.
@jackzhu5094 2 місяці тому
It appears that one child policy is justified from this course.
@bran_rx 2 місяці тому
"Don't worry about the holes"... my new mantra
@juandavidmunoz2781 2 місяці тому
Excelent!
@neilsilke6648 3 місяці тому
Wrong. The birth rate for stable population is around 1.2 per woman, not 2.1. Draw a closed system with 2 parents, two kids and two grandchildren. Population has tripled. Or do a computer model as I did. Or check China's population growth during the one child years birth rate and net migration. Will anyone listen?
@Leotagorax 15 днів тому
"The TFR is not based on the fertility of any real group of women since this would involve waiting until they had completed childbearing. _Nor is it based on counting up the total number of children actually born over their lifetime_. Instead, the TFR is based on the age-specific fertility rates of women in their "child-bearing years", which in conventional international statistical usage is ages 15-44.[11] The TFR is, therefore, a measure of the fertility of an imaginary female who passes through their reproductive life subject to all the age-specific fertility rates for ages 15-49 that were recorded for a given population in a given year. The TFR represents the average number of children a female would potentially have, were they to fast-forward through all their childbearing years in a single year, under all the age-specific fertility rates for that year. In other words, this rate is the number of children a female would have if they were subject to prevailing fertility rates at all ages from a single given year and survived throughout their childbearing years." Wikipedia
@shadmehr0654 3 місяці тому
Hi can anyone recommend some books on the history of the world economy?
@suitcasedsoul 4 місяці тому
Such gross Oversimplification of the world is either a reflection of the west/east gap in understanding of each other's cultures (East knows 100 times more about the le west than vice versa), or your neglect of your students' capcity. In both cases, you are shamefully (ir)responsible. Please be careful if you ever go to Egypt, India, Guatemala, or China... Their Millenia old spears may hit you in the back as you leave the bar and their laughs may deafen you.
@user-xz7nj9iz4d 4 місяці тому
Which book is he talking about?
@Medivh73 12 днів тому
I believe that would be An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus
@rweaver6 4 місяці тому
Does he have the right hand rule wrong??
@JoeRussell-oj7xm 4 місяці тому
This is a great lecture although at this video resolution I wish he had had colored chalk.
@rweaver6 4 місяці тому
Draws three perpendicular axes and doesn't tell you which one is x, y or z. Good luck.
@rweaver6 4 місяці тому
Not a good idea to show a coordinate frame wirh the left hand. Ever hear of the right hand rule?
@hyperpoop825 4 місяці тому
check
@harandianr 5 місяців тому
A little algebra would have made things simpler and cleaner.q=a+bi+cj+dk, Hamiltonian numbers are an extension of complex numbers. As person with mathematical background I found the lecture a bit confusing. In math you easily and cleanly show that Hamiltonian numbers form a number system but there is no commutation.Showing a=a+v part is the interesting part of this lecture. But I wish he had done it in a cleaner way mathematically. Wikipedia covers this but still I wish someone would post a lecture on rotation using Hamiltonian numbers in a detailed and clear way. But the way Hamilton wanted to make a number system in dimension 3 but it did not work. Mathematically , there are number systems of dime nation 1,2 ,4 and 8 and that is all, nothing beyond 8. Dimension 8 numbers are called Cayley With Cayley numbers you do not have a(bc) equal to (ab)c numbers. It took decades before Hamiltonian found their way into application . Let us hope that Cayley find their way in years rather than decades.
@harsh9023 5 місяців тому
The professor is awesome. Hope I get teachers like him when I get into college.
@VanNguyen-kx6gx 5 місяців тому
Teacher is no good, made many mistakes. Don’t know what the quarternions.
@charlesm835 6 місяців тому
How is this not viral? 😅omg
@dairnsohn9819 Місяць тому
That's what I'm saying 😂
@TheDjed19 6 місяців тому
Can anyone breakdown how he got 34/32 it’s not making sense thanks
@HorstNRW7 5 місяців тому
It´s 115 2/32 . Easier to calculate is: 34/32 minus 20/32 equals 14 ticks in profit.
@TheDjed19 5 місяців тому
Ahhh thank you
@unveil7762 6 місяців тому
If you apply relaxation to those point with a given radius, you can get a nice diffrential grow effect ❤
@pierfrancoelia3739 6 місяців тому
I don't envy those poor students
@felipedejesus6696 6 місяців тому
maybe mock-up vector-axis model(like with wires) that can be manipulated?
@lopezb 7 місяців тому
Beautiful lecture, thanks! Just the right amount of detail. Quaternions were invented by William Rowan Hamilton (also invented Hamiltonian Mechanics) in 1843. Heisenberg was one of the fathers of Quantum Mechanics in 1925.
@KaiseruSoze 5 місяців тому
I was going to point this out too. But I was betting someone else spotted the error. TY.
@joaogonzalez4082 4 місяці тому
Yep, I was going to state that also. But Gibbs did simplified its math to vector algebra as we know today 😏
@gokceyildirim8161 3 місяці тому
Heisenberg might have invented octonions to explain particle spins for quantum mechanics
@AdithyaVinayakAVS 7 місяців тому
It's a magical place
@Say_When 7 місяців тому
Criminally low view count..... This lecture planted a seed in my curiosity, that hasn't been quenched in 100 books... It led me to dig deeply into the medieval warming period... And it subsequent collapse in the 1300s. Starting with a great famine and then the black death.... Mongols, The plague of Justinian... Enlightenment... Renaissance.. scientific revolution... It all started with this series of lectures
@puttaganeshvardhan 7 днів тому
his source of content is "ECONOMIC HISTORY OF WROLD FROM 1800"
@ChadCreel 7 місяців тому
F*** you judge Troy L Nunly you cover corrupt police and drop my case without even so much as a trial
@8cccpeevostokzempf 8 місяців тому
Not too sure about the Heisenberg reference.
@amirkamalian5656 8 місяців тому
why caption unavailable?
@estimatingonediscoveringthree 8 місяців тому
8:19 we Still do this
@estimatingonediscoveringthree 8 місяців тому
6:02 we are in the 4th and final industrial revolution now
@estimatingonediscoveringthree 8 місяців тому
0:50 sustainable living standard without corporate intervention …..and control
@unveil7762 8 місяців тому
This was pritty complex!! Great teacher . Thanks