If the lecturer can make such an appallingly false claim and present it as true by accident in the first lecture alone without ever correcting himself, then imagine how many other times he might do the same thing later in the lecture series?
Imagine if you had been a beginner and took something he said on faith of him being a lecturer and you incorporated it into your mathematical knowledge and it turned out to be wrong? In the future you could end up making faulty deductions and not even realise it.
I wouldn't take that risk. To me, a lecture series which hasn't been proof-read and had corrections amended is less than worthless. It is actively harmful.
Don't listen to the brainlets ITT who think it is ok to learn false things
Nolan Perry
do you see a fucking poo in l00t? yes? then what do you think????
Aaron Wilson
btw, there is no good analysis class online to be found anywhere. you're better off with a good intro to analysis book like apostol. rudin for meme points.
Lucas Perez
Meme points and actual knowledge. Read Rudin's Principles+Adam's Calculus and you will become master of analysis and calc.
Ethan Powell
I won't watch it, but here's a criterion:
If he proves Stirling's approximation with anything other than Wallis integrals (especially if he uses unproven non-trivial theorems), his lectures are worth jack shit.
Hunter Howard
P U G H U G H
Charles Baker
That guy could be working on a cure for balding, for his own benefit. Instead his wasting his time on math...
Leo Perry
Why would you ever watch lectures from india? theres got to be some MIT videos online.
Source of learning matters greatly. Only learn from the best sources. Only read the greats. Everything else is corruption.
Ryan Scott
MIT math videos don't go any further than basic math like vector calc/linalg/ODEs
Noah Allen
I understand this, but the mistake is just so basic and so atrocious, and he says it so matter-of-factly that it's hard for me to take him seriously any more.
