Lec 24 | MIT 18.01 Single Variable Calculus, Fall 2007

[ttttrigg3r]

The dart board problem. It turns out to be 1% and he says that's pretty high? Seems to me 1% is pretty low.

[hilalvenus]

@ttttrigg3r Because he was friend with Ralph's little brother :-)

[redrum41987]

the problem some people have with calculus is the abstract thinking that takes real world problems and turns them into numbers that can variably change.

[agapitoflores001]

It's a bit too fast for me. I'll watch this again.

[IIAOPSW]

numerically incorrect. I accepted that the units were correct over a month ago. learn to read please.

[ryanmerkle5]

@IIAOPSW LOL please look lower down. you removed them and are incorrect:)

[IIAOPSW]

WTH,

first 2 min in. Kilowatt hour is NOT the same type of unit as calorie or ft-lbs. KwH is energy per unit time whereas the other 2 are just energy.

and why is he using those horrendous English units. Use the damn metric system.

[surferboy36O]

@IIAOPSW Actually it is. Watt is energy/time, Watt hour is W.h (not W/h or Watts per hour), so it is equal to energy/time x time, which is equal to energy. For eg. a 100W light bulb which is ON for 1 hour uses 100W.H of energy.

And yes, metric rules!

[IIAOPSW]

@ryanmerkle5

wow. your correction was redundant (as per suferboy360 1 month ago) and incorrect.

way to go "asshole" (as opposed to "ass hole").

[ryanmerkle5]

@IIAOPSW can you explain to me how it is incorrect? please brush up on your metric units before criticizing a professor at MIT :)

[ryanmerkle5]

@IIAOPSW KWH means a (Kilowatt) times an (Hour) which is (Joules per second) times (hour) which is approx. 3 600 000 joules. ass hole.

[johnliamten]

@IIAOPSW umm KwH is energy. If it wasn't multiplied by hours, then ya it would be per unit time. Also he lives in the U.S.

[kotofu]

Actually, if you do a midpoint Riemann sum, you end up with a better approximation then a trapezoid rule. Left end and right end Riemann sums are just silly.

[wzhang7]

@kotofu is there a sort of proof?

[behnamasid]

laughter @ 32:46

[RobotGymnast]

Simpson's rule at 43:40

[EgoSumIndigentia]

Pre-calculus for me was a waste of time. I remember that the only thing it was good for was for studying the SATII MATHIIc.

[BritishPrashant]

Err what's the average age of these students? In the UK we do this when we're 18 the clever ones at 17.

[PriestRSC]

@BritishPrashant you got some retards in the UK then

[gorgolyt]

it takes a lot of adjusting to before you actually understand what intuitively is happening. to be honest it's very easy to learn how to do integrals (i.e. the method), but actually setting up integrals and understanding what they mean... you probably need to cover a bit of analysis first. but once you have fully grasped the concept of a riemann sum, these things come quite easily. i can deduce things like volume integrals or radial integrals from first principles now...

[SuperMafioBrother]

I'm in PreCal now, I've been at it for almost 2 full months. I have a 93 average, and it is definitely not as hard as I thought it would be.

[VapourSword]

@SuperMafioBrother cool story brah

[PriestRSC]

@SuperMafioBrother pre-calc is nothing like true true calculus.

[SuperMafioBrother]

I've yet to take Calculus, many people make it out to be the achilles heel of those who seek higher learning. I hope that's not the truth.

[michalchik]

It is the truth, Calculus is very hard for some people but hat does not mean that you have to find it hard.

[darkoriginhunter]

man it's really pretty simple..there's just a lot of information. Three major ideas and a lot of information. If you have strong trig and algebra you will soar through calculus.