Видео

At 1:07 I think you accidentally labeled the left one a '6_2' even though it's actually a 6_1, and mislabaled the right one a '5_2' knot even though it's actually a 6_2

I accidentally tied a 6_2 knot and I don't really know how I got there?

Awesome video!

What Should We Name It? 😅

What is meant starting from 3:42 is that f is injective and g is surjective. The maps i and s are too, but they themselves are not interesting.

here from Michael Penn :)

Make more knot vids 😢

This is very important for quantum physics, as (generally), the J_3 is the z component of the angular momentum, Q is the total angular momentum, and its respective quantum numbers are the z component of the angular momentum (m) and the azimuthal quantum number (q). The J_+ and J_- are the step-up and step-down operators, respectively.

I love your videos. Thank you.

Love this. Can you explain the invariant metric in SL_2R, how the "1/y^2" appear in this? Thank you.

And the journey begins...

No comments 😭. This channel is very helpful! After occasionally perusing your content now and then and realizing that I kept coming back, I finally bought Vertex Operator Algebras and the Monster and it arrived 2 days ago! Really excited to go through it!

you're a total genius sir, wow

somehow this makes total straight forward sense like peeling an orange. please make more vids

Can you please tell me how Alexander Briggs notation woeks please?

Bowline for the win!

awesome, thank you :)

Hey. Very informative. However for those who are trying to make these knots for a class activity it is hard to follow making the knot. I would recommend a slower step by step approach pausing so that the audience can see each step, your hands sometimes block the view and make it difficult to follow. But thank you for this very informative video.

I miss these knot videos

Thank you. I had a blast learning from your videos on the representation of su(2). I only wish if you could also have a video on Principal G-bundles and group of gauge transfromations.

how can we extend it into n dimensional can we?

Nice video man. I liked the little intro you made.

Thanks for the video!

Haha! I stumbled on this representation playing around yesterday. Took me a little too long to realize what the hell was "wrong" with it.

I hope you can publish a series of VOA videos. The specific conclusion process one step by one step is included. Because I think your lessons are better than Richard Borcherds (Berkeley). You can make me have a clear mind but Richard Borcherds can't.

You are a really interesting man you can bring me a unique lesson. I am the first to learn math in a valley,not a classroom.

hmmm if i want to dig deeper into casimir operators, which videos do you recommend?

huh?

This answered a question I had thought of today! Thanks for motivating inner products!!

Awesome series! Is the playlist ordered such that we should watch in that order?

Awesome series! Thanks

I like the way you present this. Thanks.

A fellow asked a question about computing the "writhe" of the trefoil, although that comment seems to be missing now. FWIW, the easiest way is probably to project the knot down into a series of crossing, give the knot an orientation ( pick a direction an ant would walk along it, say), and then look to see if the crossings are positive or negative. This is typically defined by rotating the two-dimensional projection of the crossing so that both arrows associated to the crossing are pointed up *after* the crossing. It can be tricky to do this, so it helps to draw a lot of arrow heads and rotate the paper around. Defining which is positive or negative (whether the left or right strand is on top) is a matter of convention. Once you set that convention your results should agree with everyone else's up to an overall minus sign. For the specific case of the trefoil, all the crossing have the same sign, so it has three.

Hi, it is really useful lesson. Can you make some lesson about characteristically nilpotent lie algebras?. I think this part of lie algebras is very important.

This stuff is very helpful, thank you!

This one was a little fast. I can't remember what an adjoint is.

There is also a 7 dimensional cross product.

Note that an exception is made for 0 when talking about the existence of inverses as a requirement for a field.

Excited! Thanks! 🎉

Please don't let this die! subbed

Hi, why is a Lie algebra ideal not necessarily a Lie subalgebra? Surely the condition for it to be an ideal necessarily makes it a subalgebra.

That's right

How do you prove elegantly an inverse projection case where 2 curves cross each other at a point of intersection preserves conformality? My calculations are ugly enough to obscure. There has to be a nicer way to do this.

Request: The Unknot

Thanks for showing more of the calculations! Can the next video be of the same calculation, but for the different representation if there is time for it?

You are a sparkling star, btw i hope your finger is better

Really fun video!

Absolutely amazing video!

Nice work.

Great video! I'm looking forward to more content about vertex algebras, etc. I just uploaded a video on the topic myself, about the physics of the vertex algebra of one free boson: ruclips.net/video/uukBDltkDz0/видео.html It is meant to be the first part of a series approaching this topic from the side of CFT/string theory.