Recent content by TheoEndre

Thank you everybody so much for your replies. Even though my question was meaningless (at least, from the perspective of physical laws), I got what I was looking for.

I am still new to the theory of relativity (both SR and GR), but I've read few books which gave me an insight about the subject (not a mathematical insight though). There's a question that I really would like to know the answer of: Is there a time delay for the bending of spacetime to occur...

Thank you very much for your time, everything makes sense to me now.

I actually don't know why ##\text{im}(T)=\mathbb{R}##, but I assumed the inner product to be completely defined (if that is the right word). I hope you tell me the reason. Also, the other solution is what I've been looking for (since the textbook didn't include the rank-nullity theorem), so...

I see, everything makes sense now. To be honest, I didn't even know such theorem exist (This exercise is from a quantum mechanics textbook, they didn't mention this theorem). But from what I've seen, with the help of the linear map you gave me, the subspace the exercise mentioned is just the...

The proof that the set is a subspace is easy. What I don't get about this exercise is the dimension of the subspace. Why is the dimension of the subspace ##n-1##? I really don't have a clue on how to go through this.

Thanks for these great videos

Great

Thank you very much for this great advice, I always get depressed if I don't understand something quickly but your advice made me a bit relieved :biggrin:

Wow... Indeed, it makes more sense if you think of it that way. man... I really wish I can visualize things like this... It seems I have a lot of things to experience in order to reach this level. By the way, thanks for the insight, really helped.

Awesome picture for what is happening when taking partial derivatives... thanks for that.

I see... Thanks for clearing thinks to me.

Fair enough. So by taking the second integral, we get ##F(x,y)-F(c_1,c_2)##. I see how this is done, maybe I was overthinking it. But still, I feel like it could be proven using the definition of the partial derivatives and something else along with it. Just like when we used the definition of...

I tried my best. Tried to construct an average area ##A_{avg}## where: ##A_{avg_x} . \Delta y=V## and ##A_{avg_y} . \Delta x=V## but nothing. Tried to construct an average hight ##f_{avg}## where: ##f_{avg} . \Delta x \Delta y=V##, but nothing. Tried to use the definition of the partial...

How about: $$V= \int_{t_2=c_2}^{t_2=y} \int_{t_1=c_1}^{t_1=x} f(t_1,t_2) dt_1 dt_2$$ Where ##t_1 , t_2## are dummy variables and ##c_1 , c_2## are constants