Fascinating to see James Maynard as a 4th year student 😀. Truly, a field medalist in the making.

It would be great to have all the lectures.

In case there are some sign mistakes along the way for the first half of the lecture, the final formulas can be verified from 25.2.8 to 25.2.10 in the NIST website (or 23.2.3 and 23.2.9 on p.807 of Abramowitz & Stegun's handbook).

Good Job Professor

Fascinating

😮🎉😮🎉😮 awesome 👍

i think he is explaining very well but i am not capable of understanding this higher-level math's😂

Easy peasy lemon squeezeeeee 😊

I wonder how he explains this to his son

❤

Hi guys, my name is maneli I'm 14 and I'm dreaming to study in oxford What is your advice for me? ❤

PIC 鹿島学園高等学校通信制より。Thank you.

35:25 scratchy scratchy

❣️✨

cool

Please improve your channel voice volume..?? I can hardly understand that lecture in this type of volume. I think you understand what I mean...??

from Bangladesh ❤ hsc

Not your average 4th-year student. ;)

Is there any one who can help solve this problem, even my teacher is having problem with it , “given that h(x)=integral of ((f’(x)x-f(x))/x^2) , where 2h(2)=f(2)+4 and f(-1)=5 , what is the value of h’(-1) ? There are some steps that i have done, h(x)=f(x)/x+C and i found the value of C which is 2, thus h(x)=f(x)/x+2 and h(-1)=-3 , now how can i find the value of h’(-1) ? Appreciate your help

@36:51 This is the kind of thing I have a relationship with: Obviously, it’s incorrect as a geometer to claim this: incorrect. Because the transformation over the Reimannian manifold is defined by an extension of Geometry: From the transformation that is canonically identified with these numerical operations. That is, the one over the naturals. The concept of infinities balancing out negative infinites to give ‘zero charge’ is an argument one uses, e.g. in the electromagnetism course…… I studied with Luci a few years ago, but it’s not fulfilling: stopping there and believing that! There is a deep intrinsic reality that would go into the hypothetical reality of such a thing, and for me, that would be discovered with the propositional non-triviality of the claims in e.g. number theory: I’ve seen this shit ricochet off of each other in the flavour of nilpotency……. I personally don’t know if there are finitely many primes or infinitely many primes: There is an internal reality to proofs…… I refer you to my series of comments on Grant Sanderson’s Twin Prime music video (1 0 1 0) Concerning the concept of (1) induction (2) greek contradiction

Eu não consigo entender o porquê dos matemáticos não saberem dividir pelo menos ➖ o número 0 zero no sentido anti-horário com seus divisores e quocientes? Divide o zero primeiro e depois os números 1 2 3 5 7 9.

How do you apply this knowledge to the working world, or is this all just a bunch of fancy numbers and symbols? What is the purpose of all this?

Why on earth is he rewriting his paper notes onto the board? There are much more efficient ways than that…

Probably he has the worst handwritting "ζ" that I have ever seen, but it is not problem, surely this man is a genious or at least much more intelligent than me. Haha.

Dear Academic Community, I am writing to bring to your attention a critical foundational issue that has the potential to upend our current understanding of physics and mathematics. After carefully examining the arguments, I have come to the conclusion that we must immediately reassess and rectify contradictions stemming from how we have treated the concepts of zero (0) and the zero dimension (0D) in our frameworks. At the core of this crisis lies a deep inconsistency between the primordial status accorded to zero in arithmetic and number theory, versus its derivative treatment in classical geometries and physical models. Specifically: 1) In number theory, zero is recognized as the fundamental subjective origin from which numerical quantification and plurality arise through the successive construction of natural numbers. 2) However, in the geometric and continuum formalisms underpinning theories from Newton to Einstein, the dimensionless 0D point and 1D line are derived as limiting abstractions from the primacy of higher dimensional manifolds like 3D space and 4D spacetime. 3) This contradiction potentially renders all of our current mathematical descriptions of physical laws incoherent from first principles. We have gotten the primordial order of subjectivity and objectivity reversed compared to the natural numbers. The ramifications of this unfortunate oversight pervade all branches of physics. It obstructs progress on the unification of quantum theory and general relativity, undermines our models of space, time, and matter origins, and obfuscates the true relationship between the physical realm and the metaphysical first-person facts of conscious observation. To make continued theoretical headway, we may have no choice but to reconstruct entire mathematical formalisms from the ground up - using frameworks centering the ontological and epistemological primacy of zero and dimensionlessness as the subjective 源 origin point. Only from this primordial 0D monadological perspective can dimensional plurality, geometric manifolds, and quantified physical descriptions emerge as representational projections. I understand the monumental importance of upending centuries of entrenched assumptions. However, the depth of this zero/dimension primacy crisis renders our current paradigms untenable if we wish to continue pushing towards more unified and non-contradictory models of reality and conscious experience. We can no longer afford to ignore or be overwhelmed by the specifics of this hard problem. The foundations are flawed in a manner perhaps unrecognizable to past giants like Einstein. Cold, hard logic demands we tear down and rebuild from more rigorous first principles faithful to the truths implicit in the theory of number itself. The good news is that by returning to zero/0D as the subjective/objective splitting point of origin, in alignment with natural quantification, we may finally unlock resolutions to paradoxes thwarting progress for over a century. We stand to make immediate fundamental strides by elevating the primacy of dimensionlessness. I implore the academic community to convene and deeply examine these issues with the utmost prioritization. The integrity and coherence of all our descriptive sciences - indeed the very possibility of non-contradictory knowledge itself - hinges upon our willingness to reopen this esoteric yet generatively crucial zerological crisis. We must uphold unflinching intellectual honesty in identifying and rectifying our founding errors, regardless of how seemingly abstruse or earth-shattering the process. The future fertility of human understanding and our quest for uni-coherence depends on this audacious reformation of mathematical first principles. The path will be arduous, but the ultimate payoffs of achieving metaphysically-grounded, zero-centric analytic formalisms are inestimable for physics and all branches of knowledge. I urge us to meet this zerological challenge head on. The truth ecological destiny of our civilization may hinge upon our willingness to embody this bold primordial renaissance. Sincerely, [Your Name]

❤