Are these Real Analysis lectures worth watching?

did you not even bother scrolling down to the comments?

>>8948564
The comments don't address this.

>>8948567
>Are these Real Analysis lectures worth watching?

>Thanks alot !!! Best real analysis MOOC in entire globe as of now.
>The best lecture organization for real analysis, especially for first learner :)
>All the lectures are very useful. Please upload lectures on "Algebra" also
>very useful lecture series. Thank you sir.
do you not know how to read brainlet?

>>8948570
To be fair one of the comments says "Fuck u urself................................." which is a pretty negative reaction, so that also makes me question their quality

File: 1487888027026.jpg (851KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

851KB, 1920x1200px

>>8948573
>Are these Real Analysis lectures worth watching?
>I better go read troll comments instead of the ones where people actually comment on the video
you're probably not cut out for analysis m8

>>8948575
I figure people on /sci/ are generally smarter than random Indian people on YouTube (as evidenced by your funny trolling compared to the relatively lame trolling of Rajiv Swargiary), and therefore more qualified to judge the quality of things, so I come to /sci/ for their opinion instead.

>>8948552
Why not watch the Francis Su lectures?

>>8948616
Because it's only the first part of a two-part course. He doesn't even get into integration until part two, which isn't available online. This Indian course seems to be a good deal more comprehensive.

>>8948552
It's probably fine. Also, it's not uncommon for even good lecturers to make mistakes. Keep in mind that they've got a ton of other shit going on and they're doing this live from memory in front of a class full of people, probably without as much time to prepare as they like.

You should always question statements without believing them at face value, so knowing that the professor isn't perfect is actually good for your mathematical development.

>>8948570
If this is part of a MOOC then it's likely there is a community (as part of that MOOC) where people can make comments and ask questions about the material, as well as address mistakes in the lectures. OP would be smart to take advantage of that.

OP , don't listen to brainlets.

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

do you see a fucking poo in l00t? yes? then what do you think????

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.

>>8948907
Meme points and actual knowledge. Read Rudin's Principles+Adam's Calculus and you will become master of analysis and calc.

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.

>>8948552
>>8948907
>>8948940
P U G H
U
G
H

>>8948552
That guy could be working on a cure for balding, for his own benefit. Instead his wasting his time on math...

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.

>>8949547
MIT math videos don't go any further than basic math like vector calc/linalg/ODEs

>>8948841
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.

File: 1494355613615.gif (96KB, 455x560px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 455x560px

>>8948581
>I figure people on /sci/ are generally smarter than random Indian people on YouTube

I mean the real reason it's such a problem is that he says it with such confidence when it's obvious that he himself has never even attempted to prove it, even though this is a course that is entirely ABOUT PROVING THINGS. Of course, if he HAD made that attempt, then he would have realized that there IS a relation that is both symmetric and antisymmetric, and that it's in fact the most basic relation in all of mathematics.

>>8948552
It's really not the "horrendous mistake" you make it out to be. Only a trivial relation can be both (ie some subset of the identity relation).

>>8950122
That's precisely why it's such a big mistake thoguh

It's almost as bad as when United States President Donald Trump said "covfefe"

>>8948552
>Not caring about trivial crap
>Horrendous mistake
Get out of mathetics you asinine pedantic piece of shit. There is no place for you here.

>>8950162
There's a difference between not caring about it and claiming it doesn't exist. He could have just not mentioned it, which I would have been perfectly fine with. But no, he says that there is NO relation that is both symmetric and anti-symmetric, and he even suggests that it should be obvious based on the definitions of those concepts, which is just embarrassing.

>>8950166
pissant

>>8950157
two scoops an now made up words. baka

>>8950128
Trivial objects are generally ignored, its more correct to say that anti-sym implies sym than to not mention that fact because of one counter example.

Sets contain members is false btw
Functions have outputs is false

>>8950216
Your mother is a trivial object who should be generally ignored.