Undergrad Feedback for my YouTube Videos on Real Analysis

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on feedback for a YouTube video on Real Analysis, specifically addressing the Archimedean Property of Reals. Viewers noted that the presenter improved clarity by speaking at a more manageable pace compared to previous videos. However, some critiques highlighted a lack of definitions for key terms like "ordered" and the distinction between operations in the context of fields. The presenter acknowledged these points, explaining that the video was meant as a recap of previously covered material. Overall, the feedback indicates a positive reception of the recent changes, with an emphasis on the importance of clear definitions in mathematical discussions.
caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
Some time back I posted about my videos on Group Theory on YouTube and got valuable feedback from the PF community.

With the response in mind, I made substantial changes to my presentation.
One of the main complaints was that I was speaking too fast.

Here is my recent video on Real Analysis: Archimedean Property of Reals

The purpose of this post is to get some more feedback on the clarity of videos such as above.

Ultimately my goal is to host a huge array of high quality higher math courses on my channel.

Thank you.
 
  • Like
Likes Euge and haushofer
Physics news on Phys.org
caffeinemachine said:
One of the main complaints was that I was speaking too fast.
It appears that you took the complaint to heart -- this video was much easier to understand.

At the beginning of the video you were talking about ordered fields. You didn't define what you meant by "ordered". Also, when you talked about the term "field" you mentioned the four arithmetic operations. In analysis, the only binary operations are addition and multiplication. In the context of rings, integral domains, and fields (a field is an integral domain in which every element except the additive identity has a multiplicative inverse, which we can call z). Subtraction is defined as addition by the additive inverse (i.e., -x), and division is defined as multiplication by the multiplicative inverse (i.e., ##x^{-1}).
 
Mark44 said:
It appears that you took the complaint to heart -- this video was much easier to understand.
Thank you for the encouragement.
Mark44 said:
At the beginning of the video you were talking about ordered fields. You didn't define what you meant by "ordered".
This is only one video in a series of videos. Ordered fields were discussed in detail in a previous one. The beginning was meant as a quick recap.
Mark44 said:
Also, when you talked about the term "field" you mentioned the four arithmetic operations. In analysis, the only binary operations are addition and multiplication. In the context of rings, integral domains, and fields (a field is an integral domain in which every element except the additive identity has a multiplicative inverse, which we can call z). Subtraction is defined as addition by the additive inverse (i.e., -x), and division is defined as multiplication by the multiplicative inverse (i.e., ##x^{-1}).
I agree that 'subtraction' and 'division' are derived operations. I meant to only quickly capture the main idea of a field. All the formal details were covered in a previous video.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
Hi @caffeinemachine! It's been a while. I looked at some of your more recent videos, and overall I enjoyed their clarity and quality!
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
Euge said:
Hi @caffeinemachine! It's been a while. I looked at some of your more recent videos, and overall I enjoyed their clarity and quality!
Hey thanks so much man!
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K