Jesus christ man I started looking into modular arithmetic without knowing anything about it beforehand as part of a high school assignment, and your clear explanations helped me understand everything in such a way, that even 5-10 other videos couldn't accomplish! Keep up the good work, you deserve so many more views and subs!
12:24 Oh ho ho! I know that excitement in your voice - i've had that excitement in my voice - where everything becomes clear and the pieces fall in place, where you see the light at the end of the tunnel. It's beautiful, Good stuff.
That was absolutely insane, my text book really had a field day with making it extremely complicated by using maps. This was clear and I was able to see the magic, I was blown away by the result of this proof
This is a pretty neat proof of these theorems! It's simple, straightforward, and not at all tedious, good job! Do you plan on doing a video on the Chinese remainder theorem?
I don't plan to make a video on the Chinese remainder theorem, but it will be important for one of the derivations coming up soon. I will make a community post about it in the next few days!
Oh wow, I knew about Fermat's little theorem but I had no idea it was a special case of this one. Cool video, but I might need to get slightly more comfortable with some of the fundamentals of modular arithmetic to completely get the rules, though you seem to have videos for that too, which helps.
I am curious here as to why you are putting out videos on so many varied math topics? Is this a project? Anyway good luck going to Caltech. If I can ask you, what for you is the most interesting work going on right now. In science or math or other?
I'm not sure what I find most interesting yet because I still don't have much background knowledge! I hope to learn more math so that I can understand what's happening at the frontiers of math research.
= THE GREAT! - THE GREATEST!!! Theorem of the 21st century! = !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "- an equation of the form X**m + Y**n = Z**k , where m != n != k - any integer(unequal "!=") numbers greater than 2 , - INSOLVable! in integers". !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /- open publication priority of 22/07/2022 / /-Proven by me! minimum-less than 7-10 pp. !!!!!!!!!!!!@@@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The standard definition of remainder ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_division#Division_theorem ) defines a remainder to be non-negative. A negative number is always congruent to a positive number mod n for n>0, so a negative remainder is always equivalent to some positive remainder.
unrelated comment, but it's worrying me is youtube under some bot raid? arthritis' styled comments popping everywhere at every "small" channel i visited and could read through the comment section
If the notation at 9:07 is confusing, I talk a little about what it means in this video: ruclips.net/video/SslPWR2N5jA/видео.html
precise explanation of totient theorem I've ever come across
Best, most clear, concise least stuttery explanation I've ever seen of the Proofs of the Totient Theorem. Also amazing proof of FLT. Congrats!!
Jesus christ man I started looking into modular arithmetic without knowing anything about it beforehand as part of a high school assignment, and your clear explanations helped me understand everything in such a way, that even 5-10 other videos couldn't accomplish! Keep up the good work, you deserve so many more views and subs!
The best demonstration I ever saw about this ! Thank you
Great Video. The concept seemed so abstract without seeing the intuition behind it. Now it makes total sense!
nice video i was looking for a neat proof of the totient formula for a while now and you did it!
12:24 Oh ho ho! I know that excitement in your voice - i've had that excitement in my voice - where everything becomes clear and the pieces fall in place, where you see the light at the end of the tunnel. It's beautiful, Good stuff.
Amazing video. Clear and detailed explanations.
Thank you! Is the best proof of this theorem I've seen!
Thank you for the delicate demonstration
Very neat. Amazing work. Thank you!
So straightforward! Good Lecturer
That was absolutely insane, my text book really had a field day with making it extremely complicated by using maps.
This was clear and I was able to see the magic, I was blown away by the result of this proof
Very clear explanation! Great!!!
I can understand this with secondary school math, meaning a great job done by you. Thanks
Love you Sir. You are helping people
You're great!! Keep making more videos :D
bro really made me think fr, amazing video
Excellent video! thank you
Thank you! A very good proof
This is a pretty neat proof of these theorems!
It's simple, straightforward, and not at all tedious, good job!
Do you plan on doing a video on the Chinese remainder theorem?
I don't plan to make a video on the Chinese remainder theorem, but it will be important for one of the derivations coming up soon. I will make a community post about it in the next few days!
Where can i check the post?
The community post is mainly a link to this playlist: ruclips.net/p/PL22w63XsKjqyg3TEfDGsWoMQgWMUMjYhl
I recommend watching the first two videos.
thank you so much, great and very helpful video
Thank you so much it really helped
Thank you so so much
I'm merely struggling with this and can't even understand a thing. Thank you sooo much for keeping everything straight
your really good at speaking
thank you
The injection part... if we define f(x) = ax mod n, and gcd(a,n) = 1 , then if x1 =/= x2 , f(x1) =/= f(x2)
i think there is a small typo at 11:35. it should be Product (x_i_j ) = Product a * x _ j , since j ranges from 1 to phi
This lecture was so amazing, that it seems like you should be charging a phi!
It took me a minute to remember that phi has two pronunciations! Lol
@@MuPrimeMath When it comes to pronunciation, I just go with what sounds right and don't try to phite it 👍
You sound a bit like Addison Anderson who narrates the tedX videos!
4:20 Why is set S not congruent mod n. How does it being between 1 and n make it incongruent? and what is it incongruent to?
The elements of S are pairwise incongruent to each other mod n because (by definition) they are distinct numbers between 1 and n.
thanks so much ! just a small question : is saying that a isn't multiple of p, the same as gcd(a,p) = 1 ?
Yes, because p is prime.
@@MuPrimeMath thanks so much !
I could not understand injection mod n
Oh wow, I knew about Fermat's little theorem but I had no idea it was a special case of this one. Cool video, but I might need to get slightly more comfortable with some of the fundamentals of modular arithmetic to completely get the rules, though you seem to have videos for that too, which helps.
Which college have you choose?
Caltech!
@@MuPrimeMath congratulations and all the best!!
I am curious here as to why you are putting out videos on so many varied math topics? Is this a project? Anyway good luck going to Caltech. If I can ask you, what for you is the most interesting work going on right now. In science or math or other?
I'm not sure what I find most interesting yet because I still don't have much background knowledge! I hope to learn more math so that I can understand what's happening at the frontiers of math research.
@@MuPrimeMath does that answer to my questions imply your in high school or just graduated? Yes or no?
I'm in my freshman year of college.
@@MuPrimeMath ok🥸
Don't forget to take Putnam Comp or equivalent as undergrad. Best of luck.
= THE GREAT! - THE GREATEST!!! Theorem of the 21st century! = !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"- an equation of the form X**m + Y**n = Z**k , where m != n != k - any integer(unequal "!=") numbers greater than 2 , - INSOLVable! in integers".
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
/- open publication priority of 22/07/2022 /
/-Proven by me! minimum-less than 7-10 pp. !!!!!!!!!!!!@@@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What if a is a negative integer
The theorem is still true!
@@MuPrimeMath so will the remainders still be from 1 to n-1 because i dont think so
The remainder of any integer when divided by any positive integer is always between 0 and n-1.
@@MuPrimeMath but what about negative remainders
The standard definition of remainder ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_division#Division_theorem ) defines a remainder to be non-negative. A negative number is always congruent to a positive number mod n for n>0, so a negative remainder is always equivalent to some positive remainder.
Would I get a higher mark in my meth test if I wrap my head with a towel?
bro is so pretty i can not focus on the board
unrelated comment, but it's worrying me
is youtube under some bot raid?
arthritis' styled comments popping everywhere at every "small" channel i visited and could read through the comment section
your profile picture missed an S