Here, we look at the math behind an animation

like this, what’s known as a “complex Fourier series”. Each little vector is rotating

at some constant integer frequency, and when you add them all together, tip to tail, they

draw out some shape over time. By tweaking the initial size and angle of each vector,

we can make it draw anything we want, and here you’ll see how. Before diving in, take a moment to linger

on just how striking this is. This particular animation has 300 rotating arrows in total.

Go full screen for this is you can, the intricacy is worth it. Think about this, the action

of each individual arrow is perhaps the simplest thing you could imagine: Rotation at a steady

rate. Yet the collection of all added together is anything but simple. The mind-boggling

complexity is put into even sharper focus the farther we zoom in, revealing the contributions

of the littlest, quickest arrows. Considering the chaotic frenzy you’re looking

at, and the clockwork rigidity of the underlying motions, it’s bizarre how the swarm acts

with a kind of coordination to trace out some very specific shape. Unlike much of the emergent

complexity you find elsewhere in nature, though, this is something we have the math to describe

and to control completely. Just by tuning the starting conditions, nothing more, you

can make this swarm conspire in all the right ways to draw anything you want, provided you

have enough little arrows. What’s even crazier, as you’ll see, is the ultimate formula for

all this is incredibly short. Often, Fourier series are described in terms

of functions of real numbers being broken down as a sum of sine waves. That turns out

to be a special case of this more general rotating vector phenomenon that we’ll build

up to, but it’s where Fourier himself started, and there’s good reason for us to start

the story there as well. Technically, this is the third video in a

sequence about the heat equation, what Fourier was working on when he developed his big idea.

I’d like to teach you about Fourier series in a way that doesn’t depend on you coming

from those chapters, but if you have at least a high-level idea of the problem form physics

which originally motivated this piece of math, it gives some indication for how unexpectedly

far-reaching Fourier series are. All you need to know is that we had this equation,

describing how the temperature on a rod will evolve over time (which incidentally also

describes many other phenomena unrelated to heat), and while it’s hard to directly use

it to figure out what will happen to an arbitrary heat distribution, there’s a simple solution

if that initial function looks like a cosine wave with a frequency tuned to make it flat

at each endpoint. Specifically, as you graph what happens over time, these waves simply

get scaled down exponentially, with higher frequency waves decaying faster. The heat equation happens to be what’s known

in the business as a “linear” equation, meaning if you know two solutions and you

add them up, that sum is also a new solution. You can even scale them each by some constant,

which gives you some dials to turn to construct a custom function solving the equation. This is a fairly straightforward property

that you can verify for yourself, but it’s incredibly important. It means we can take

our infinite family of solutions, these exponentially decaying cosine waves, scale a few of them

by some custom constants of our choosing, and combine them to get a solution for a new

tailor-made initial condition which is some combination of cosine waves. Something important I want you to notice about

combining the waves like this is that because higher frequency ones decay faster, this sum

which you construct will smooth out over time as the high-frequency terms quickly go to

zero, leaving only the low-frequency terms dominating. So in some sense, all the complexity

in the evolution that the heat equation implies is captured by this difference in decay rates

for the different frequency components. It’s at this point that Fourier gains immortality.

I think most normal people at this stage would say “well, I can solve the heat equation

when the initial temperature distribution happens to look like a wave, or a sum of waves,

but what a shame that most real-world distributions don’t at all look like this!” For example, let’s say you brought together

two rods, each at some uniform temperature, and you wanted to know what happens immediately

after they come into contact. To make the numbers simple, let’s say the temperature

of the left rod is 1 degree, and the right rod is -1 degree, and that the total length

L of the combined rod is 1. Our initial temperature distribution is a step function, which is

so obviously different from sine waves and sums of sine waves, don’t you think? I mean,

it’s almost entirely flat, not wavy, and for god’s sake, it’s even discontinuous! And yet, Fourier thought to ask a question

which seems absurd: How do you express this as a sum of sine waves? Even more boldly,

how do you express any initial temperature distribution as a sum of sine waves? And it’s more constrained than just that!

You have to restrict yourself to adding waves which satisfy a certain boundary condition,

which as we saw last video means working only with these cosine functions whose frequencies

are all some whole number multiple of a given base frequency. (And by the way, if you were working with

a different boundary condition, say that the endpoints must stay fixed, you’d have a

different set of waves at your disposal to piece together, in this case simply replacing

the cosine functions with sines) It’s strange how often progress in math

looks like asking a new question, rather than simply answering an old one. Fourier really does have a kind of immortality,

with his name essentially synonymous with the idea of breaking down functions and patterns

as combinations of simple oscillations. It’s really hard to overstate just how important

and far-reaching that idea turned out to be, well beyond anything Fourier could have imagined.

And yet, the origin of all this is in a piece of physics which upon first glance has nothing

to do with frequencies and oscillations. If nothing else this should give a hint and how

generally applicable Fourier series are. “Now hang on,” I hear some of you saying,

“none of these sums of sine waves being shown are actually the step function.” It’s

true, any finite sum of sine waves will never be perfectly flat (except for a constant function),

nor discontinuous. But Fourier thought more broadly, considering infinite sums. In the

case of our step function, it turns out to be equal to this infinite sum, where the coefficients

are 1, -⅓, +⅕, -1/7 and so on for all the odd frequencies, all rescaled by 4/pi.

I’ll explain where these numbers come from in a moment. Before that, I want to be clear about what

we mean with a phrase like “infinite sum”, which runs the risk of being a little vague.

Consider the simpler context of numbers, where you could say, for example, this infinite

sum of fractions equals pi / 4. As you keep adding terms one-by-one, at all times what

you have is rational; it never actually equals the irrational pi / 4. But this sequence of

partial sums approaches pi / 4. That is to say, the numbers you see, while never equal

to pi / 4, get arbitrarily close to that value, and stay arbitrarily close to that value.

That’s a mouthful, so instead we abbreviate and say the infinite sum “equals” pi / 4. With functions, you’re doing the same thing

but with many different values in parallel. Consider a specific input, and the value of

all these scaled cosine functions for that input. If that input is less than 0.5, as

you add more and more terms, the sum will approach 1. If that input is greater than

0.5, as you add more and more terms it would approach -1. At the input 0.5 itself, all

the cosines are 0, so the limit of the partial sums is 0. Somewhat awkwardly, then, for this

infinite sum to be strictly true, we do have to prescribe the value of the step function

at the point of discontinuity to be 0. Analogous to an infinite sum of rational number

being irrational, the infinite sum of wavy continuous functions can equal a discontinuous

flat function. Limits allow for qualitative changes which finite sums alone never could. There are multiple technical nuances I’m

sweeping under the rug here. Does the fact that we’re forced into a certain value for

the step function at its point of discontinuity make any difference for the heat flow problem?

For that matter what does it really mean to solve a PDE with a discontinuous initial condition?

Can we be sure the limit of solutions to the heat equation is also a solution? Do all functions

have a Fourier series like this? These are exactly the kind of question real analysis

is built to answer, but it falls a bit deeper in the weeds than I think we should go here,

so I’ll relegate that links in the video’s description. The upshot is that when you take the heat

equation solutions associated with these cosine waves and add them all up, all infinitely

many of them, you do get an exact solution describing how the step function will evolve

over time. The key challenge, of course, is to find these

coefficients? So far, we’ve been thinking about functions with real number outputs,

but for the computations I’d like to show you something more general than what Fourier

originally did, applying to functions whose output can be any complex number, which is

where those rotating vectors from the opening come back into play. Why the added complexity? Aside from being

more general, in my view the computations become cleaner and it’s easier to see why

they work. More importantly, it sets a good foundation for ideas that will come up again

later in the series, like the Laplace transform and the importance of exponential functions.

The relation between cosine decomposition and rotating vector decomposition

We’ll still think of functions whose input is some real number on a finite interval,

say the one from 0 to 1 for simplicity. But whereas something like a temperature function

will have an output confined to the real number line, we’ll broaden our view to outputs

anywhere in the two-dimensional complex plane. You might think of such a function as a drawing,

with a pencil tip tracing along different points in the complex plane as the input ranges

from 0 to 1. Instead of sine waves being the fundamental building block, as you saw at

the start, we’ll focus on breaking these functions down as a sum of little vectors,

all rotating at some constant integer frequency. Functions with real number outputs are essentially

really boring drawings; a 1-dimensional pencil sketch. You might not be used to thinking

of them like this, since usually we visualize such a function with a graph, but right now

the path being drawn is only in the output space. When we do the decomposition into rotating

vectors for these boring 1d drawings, what will happen is that all the vectors with frequency

1 and -1 will have the same length, and they’ll be horizontal reflections of each other. When

you just look at the sum of these two as they rotate, that sum stays fixed on the real number

line, and oscillates like a sine wave. This might be a weird way to think about a sine

wave, since we’re used to looking at its graph rather than the output alone wandering

on the real number line. But in the broader context of functions with complex number outputs,

this is what sine waves look like. Similarly, the pair of rotating vectors with frequency

2, -2 will add another sine wave component, and so on, with the sine waves we were looking

at earlier now corresponding to pairs of vectors rotating in opposite directions. So the context Fourier originally studied,

breaking down real-valued functions into sine wave components, is a special case of the

more general idea with 2d-drawings and rotating vectors. At this point, maybe you don’t trust me

that widening our view to complex functions makes things easier to understand, but bear

with me. It really is worth the added effort to see the fuller picture, and I think you’ll

be pleased by how clean the actual computation is in this broader context. You may also wonder why, if we’re going

to bump things up to 2-dimensions, we don’t we just talk about 2d vectors; What’s the

square root of -1 got to do with anything? Well, the heart and soul of Fourier series

is the complex exponential, e^{i * t}. As the value of t ticks forward with time, this

value walks around the unit circle at a rate of 1 unit per second. In the next video, you’ll see a quick intuition

for why exponentiating imaginary numbers walks in circles like this from the perspective

of differential equations, and beyond that, as the series progresses I hope to give you

some sense for why complex exponentials are important. You see, in theory, you could describe all

of this Fourier series stuff purely in terms of vectors and never breathe a word of i.

The formulas would become more convoluted, but beyond that, leaving out the function

e^x would somehow no longer authentically reflect why this idea turns out to be so useful

for solving differential equations. For right now you can think of this e^{i t} as a notational

shorthand to describe a rotating vector, but just keep in the back of your mind that it’s

more significant than a mere shorthand. I’ll be loose with language and use the

words “vector” and “complex number” somewhat interchangeably, in large part because

thinking of complex numbers as little arrows makes the idea of adding many together clearer. Alright, armed with the function e^{i*t},

let’s write down a formula for each of these rotating vectors we’re working with. For

now, think of each of them as starting pointed one unit to right, at the number 1. The easiest vector to describe is the constant

one, which just stays at the number 1, never moving. Or, if you prefer, it’s “rotating”

at a frequency of 0. Then there will be a vector rotating 1 cycle every second which

we write as e^{2pi * i * t}. The 2pi is there because as t goes from 0 to 1, it needs to

cover a distance of 2pi along the circle. In what’s being shown, it’s actually 1

cycle every 10 seconds so that things aren’t too dizzying, but just think of it as slowed

down by a factor of 10. We also have a vector rotating at 1 cycle

per second in the other direction, e^{negative 2pi * i * t}. Similarly, the one going 2 rotations

per second is e^{2 * 2pi * i * t}, where that 2 * 2pi in the exponent describes how much

distance is covered in 1 second. And we go on like this over all integers, both positive

and negative, with a general formula of e^{n * 2pi * i * t} for each rotating vector. Notice, this makes it more consistent to write

the constant vector is written as e^{0 * 2pi * i * t}, which feels like an awfully complicated

to write the number 1, but at least then it fits the pattern. The control we have, the set of knobs and

dials we get to turn, is the initial size and direction of each of these numbers. The

way we control that is by multiplying each one by some complex number, which I’ll call

c_n. For example, if we wanted that constant vector

not to be at the number 1, but to have a length of 0.5, we’d scale it by 0.5. If we wanted

the vector rotating at one cycle per second to start off at an angle of 45o, we’d multiply

it by a complex number which has the effect of rotating it by that much, which you might

write as e^{pi/4 * i}. If it’s initial length needed to be 0.3, the coefficient would be

0.3 times that amount. Likewise, everyone in our infinite family

of rotating vectors has some complex constant being multiplied into it which determines

its initial angle and magnitude. Our goal is to express any arbitrary function f(t),

say this one drawing an eighth note, as a sum of terms like this, so we need some way

to pick out these constants one-by-one given data of the function. The easiest one is the constant term. This

term represents a sort of center of mass for the full drawing; if you were to sample a

bunch of evenly spaced values for the input t as it ranges from 0 to 1, the average of

all the outputs of the function for those samples will be the constant term c_0. Or

more accurately, as you consider finer and finer samples, their average approaches c_0

in the limit. What I’m describing, finer and finer sums of f(t) for sample of t from

the input range, is an integral of f(t) from 0 to 1. Normally, since I’m framing this

in terms of averages, you’d divide this integral by the length of the interval. But

that length is 1, so it amounts to the same thing. There’s a very nice way to think about why

this integral would pull out c0. Since we want to think of the function as a sum of

these rotating vectors, consider this integral (this continuous average) as being applied

to that sum. This average of a sum is the same as a sum over the averages of each part;

you can read this move as a subtle shift in perspective. Rather than looking at the sum

of all the vectors at each point in time, and taking the average value of the points

they trace out, look at the average value for each individual vector as t goes from

0 to 1, and add up all these averages. But each of these vectors makes a whole number

of rotations around 0, so its average value as t goes from 0 to 1 will be 0. The only

exception is that constant term; since it stays static and doesn’t rotate, it’s

average value is just whatever number it started on, which is c0. So doing this average over

the whole function is sort of a way to kill all terms that aren’t c0. But now let’s say you wanted to compute

a different term, like c_2 in front of the vector rotating 2 cycles per second. The trick

is to first multiply f(t) by something which makes that vector hold still (sort of the

mathematical equivalent of giving a smartphone to an overactive child). Specifically, if

you multiply the whole function by e^{negative 2 * 2pi*i * t}, think about what happens to

each term. Since multiplying exponentials results in adding what’s in the exponent,

the frequency term in each of the exponents gets shifted down by 2. So now, that c_{-1} vector spins around -3

times, with an average of 0. The c_0 vector, previously constant, now rotates twice as

t ranges from 0 to 1, so its average is 0. And likewise, all vectors other than the c_2

term make some whole number of rotations, meaning they average out to 0. So taking the

average of this modified function, all terms other than the second one get killed, and

we’re left with c_2. Of course, there’s nothing special about

2 here. If we replace it with any other n, you have a formula for any other term c_n.

Again, you can read this expression as modifying our function, our 2d drawing, so as to make

the n-th little vector hold still, and then performing an average so that all other vectors

get canceled out. Isn’t that crazy? All the complexity of this decomposition as a

sum of many rotations is entirely captured in this expression. So when I’m rendering these animations,

that’s exactly what I’m having the computer do. It treats this path like a complex function,

and for a certain range of values for n, it computes this integral to find each coefficient

c_n. For those of you curious about where the data for the path itself comes from, I’m

going the easy route having the program read in an svg, which is a file format that defines

the image in terms of mathematical curves rather than with pixel values, so the mapping

f(t) from a time parameter to points in space basically comes predefined. In what’s shown right now, I’m using 101

rotating vectors, computing values of n from -50 up to 50. In practice, the integral is

computed numerically, basically meaning it chops up the unit interval into many small

pieces of size delta-t and adds up this value f(t)e^{-n * 2pi * i * t} * delta-t for each

one of them. There are fancier methods for more efficient numerical integration, but

that gives the basic idea. After computing these 101 values, each one

determines an initial position for the little vectors, and then you set them all rotating,

adding them all tip to tail, and the path drawn out by the final tip is some approximation

of the original path. As the number of vectors used approaches infinity, it gets more and

more accurate. Relation to step function

To bring this all back down to earth, consider the example we were looking at earlier of

a step function, which was useful for modeling the heat dissipation between two rods of different

temperatures after coming into contact. Like any real-valued function, and step function

is like a boring drawing confined to one-dimension. But this one is and especially dull drawing,

since for inputs between 0 and 0.5, the output just stays static at the number 1, and then

it discontinuously jumps to -1 for inputs between 0.5 and 1. So in the Fourier series

approximation, the vector sum stays really close to 1 for the first half of the cycle,

then really quickly jumps to -1 for the second half. Remember, each pair of vectors rotating

in opposite directions correspond to one of the cosine waves we were looking at earlier. To find the coefficients, you’d need to

compute this integral. For the ambitious viewers among you itching to work out some integrals

by hand, this is one where you can do the calculus to get an exact answer, rather than

just having a computer do it numerically for you. I’ll leave it as an exercise to work

this out, and to relate it back to the idea of cosine waves by pairing off the vectors

rotating in opposite directions. For the even more ambitious, I’ll also leave

another exercises up on screen on how to relate this more general computation with what you

might see in a textbook describing Fourier series only in terms of real-valued functions

with sines and cosines. By the way, if you’re looking for more Fourier

series content, I highly recommend the videos by Mathologer and The Coding Train on the

topic, and the blog post by Jezzamoon. So on the one hand, this concludes our discussion

of the heat equation, which was a little window into the study of partial differential equations. But on the other hand, this foray into Fourier

series is a first glimpse at a deeper idea. Exponential functions, including their generalization

into complex numbers and even matrices, play a very important role for differential equations,

especially when it comes to linear equations. What you just saw, breaking down a function

as a combination of these exponentials, comes up again in different shapes and forms.

everything is math but it's so hard

What. Visualization tool do you use? Thanks in advance.

Sir, I would love to say you are one of the best on this universe, I guess your work should be immortal, It`s astonishing me thinking of all teams of Artist, Graphics team collaborate with Mathematicians/engineers (the community) to come up with this master piece, is there a way to contribute to your team financially beside doing the math challenges š ,

Wow.. I finally understand this after passing whole year of classes and watching this video

What an amazing channel! Elegant and wonderful.

this video is the start of a scientific breakthrough years down the line.

This channel is basically a gym for my brain.

This has got be among the very best intellectual content on YT.

foray into fourier

3:42 āTo get a new Taylor made function…ā

Does that supposed to be a pun, or you genuinely want to say tailor-made :v

As a civil engineer I have to say that this is the best channel on youtube I came across recently. I was searching for some movies about ODE and your way of explaining things is so straight forward, that can be understand easily. I'm amazed how much work you put in to make it happen, but for sure you are the best math/physic teacher on youtube. Thank you for your time!

Having a PhD, I watch your videos and nothing is new to me. But man I feel like I am learning a lot. GREAT JOB and Thank you.

Totally Not Confusing!let's get him to 2M this week

my bachelor degree is English And Literature did I waste my years learning? after watching this video YES!

friend: how well can you draw?

me: how many arrows you got?

friend has left the chat

Hello, I have allready subscribed to your channel because I find it great!! I really like your job… Congrats!. But, I've have been watching many of your videos and I saw that you make your own animations (or that is what I think, tell me if I wrong). So, if you really do… Can you tell me which program do you use?. Please, I want make my own animations to make some experiments (simulations). I recently found "Python", but It doesn't looks as cool like your animations.

Greetings from Mexico.

when some arrows draw better than you

The crux of this video (to me) was the explanation on how to make the image using the arrows. That was also the part I got lost on. So I made a "summary" of the "steps" to make an image using the arrows to clear it up for myself.

[NOTE: if my shit is incorrect: please tell me]

– you have a function f(t), which makes a pretty picture when graphed

– You would like to describe this function f(t) by making it with a shitload of tiny spinning arrows [16:33]

-so you have a bunch of those e expressions (e^(2Ļit)) and you're like… "if I attach a constant to that e expression, then I can make it graph a circle with a certain length + period

-"if I arrange the fifty arrows in order with a certain length and period at the beginning, then I can create the image by just adding the e expressions and making the last arrow in the chain be the drawer. So I need the appropriate constants to stick onto the e expressions"

-so like… "I have fifty fucking arrows how do I find all the constants"

– grab the original f(t) and Integrate it from 0 to 1 dt (assuming everything that's relevant in the function happens in that time frame)

-so you have discovered the "average value" ("center of mass") of the function!!! (Don't worry the total "mass" is one so you don't have to do any divisions) [18:22]

-so you're like "how do I find the other 49…"

-THeN you realize you can just stick an e expression to the f(t) function to shift it so that when you integrate it, it will output the NEXT constant for the next arrow because the extra term will cancel out the other arrows leaving the next one [18:50]

-You let the computer do that for the next 49 [21:16]

-now you have all your constants.

-now just appropriately stick them onto your e function and VOILA.

-the image is drawn by letting the fifty-arrow-function go from t=0 to t=1 (note: I think the t-endpoints can be manipulated) [21:46]

Extras

-use more arrows (like a hundred arrows) for a better image

That's it. I may mark with timestamps for the connecting parts.

Is real numbers math a form of Fourier if you consider how real numbers math calculates irrational numbers when e to the i pi = -1, in other words irrational numbers are rational outside the framework of real number calculations which are perhaps related to a Fourier mechanism? To put it another way perhaps real numbers, irrational numbers, and other variants of numbers have their own characteristic optimal dimension where they are rational or more rational in the sense of computational efficiency.

How do the coefficients of a function with real outputs look like? Are they always pure imaginary numbers or something like that? How can they be distinguished from coefficients of a complex-valued function?

if i'd been given another chance to live a different life, ill choose whatever path that get me close to this man and be his student for the rest of my life. you dear Grant, you are immortal too.

I have no idea why your channel was recommended to me few times and I have no idea if I will ever use any of this in the future, BUT! Your clear explainations and fine edit makes it so interesting to watch after a while!

next time when you are trying to learning something hard, think about this. n equals to the amount of time you sit down and practice, the more you do, the better you become

This is pure gold

Greetings from Colombia!

Nail and gear rocks

Ahhh, the channel I didn't have while at engineering school… yay? š

PolyBezier

Excellent video as always! Watching this did make me think that it would be great to do a spinoff video where you provide the linear algebra view on this and demonstrate how you can have vector spaces with infinite many basis elements

before wathcing this video i like maths but now i love maths

You can draw hentai using this

[wiggles in vector]

Amazing video!

One question: in the video you add rotating vectors with frequencies of integer values, but it seems this should work for any infinite number of frequencies right?

Hey 3b1b, I made a project that actually takes in a .png and traces it with a fourier series by reading the pixels rather than a bunch of vectors. Let me know if you would be interested or want more info!

Out of curiosity, have you written a code to analyze drawings and animate then using this? I would be so interested in downloading such a code

Is there a āHyperbolic Fourier Seriesā ?

Any chance of Wavelet videos? Fourirer and Wavelets gives fanstastic overview of Digital Signal processing…

Am I immortal as well š ?

You are intelignet

I am a High School Math Enthusiast from India

I was wondering that

Is it possible that the path of a particle in Brownian Motion can be defined by Fourier Series?

Dude what is wrong with you. Those skills you have in programming AND math are surreal.

10:30… mind… EXPLODED

the animation was superb! what software did you use @3Blue1Brown?

Sei que sou ninguĆ©m para pedir isso, mas por favor, alguĆ©m traduza para o portuguĆŖs, vai ajudar muita gente que conheĆ§o Ć© que ama o canal.

So this may be an unrelated thought, but if there are infinitely many numbers, and each number has a corresponding positive or negative counterpart based on its absolute value, such that -2 corresponds to +2 and -3 corresponds to +3 and so on, would that mean that there is actually an odd number of numbers due to the fact that 0 does not have a corresponding counterpart other than itself?

Ah, I see you are a fellow Tim. FLAGGY FLAG FOREVER!!

Mean while iām arguing with my 3rd year highschool friend about -3 is bigger or -2 is bigger

It is why we can see materialised objects. We only vawes… in quantum etherium fluid.

Is it very crazy for me? Yes, It's.

ģ§źøź¹ģ§ ģ“ė° ź·øė¦¼ģ ģģė¤. ģ“ź²ģ ģķģøź° ģģ ģøź°.

I wanted to draw by circles, but I had to learn the integral, Sigma and so on. P. s I'm 15 years old

How to convert .png or .jpg file into .svg file ?

a foray into fourier series, nice

Is there a similar 3D form of Fourier transforms that can make 3D shapes?

What would the graph look like if the base was different than e, say 10, and the function was 10^it? Would that also be an arrow rotating around the complex plane?

Iām in the process of writing my thesis for a PhD in theoretical physics and Iāll be completely honest, I cried at how elegant this explanation is. Thank you for helping someone who feels theyāve lost a lot of passion for maths and physics after years of hard work, realise that they still have the capacity to really care about these subjects. Truly thank you.

What language does he code in? Could this be done in Python?

That Math Immortals didn't have :

Ancient Indian Mathematicians who laid the foundation of mathematics. I'm an Indian, so I'm triggered!!!

How did you make that face? I wanna make mine too. How can I ? (No coding Experience)

Wait, are these drawings real?

Is that how pictures are made on an oscilloscope? That's amazing either way!(no.)

An unbelievably good video. The whole series of videos are the best one can find on youtube.

Whoever first invents a time machine, please go back in time and show Fourier this video. Absolutely amazing!

Interessant mais: Trop rapide.

Nice video. Create the same explanation video about wavelets please. ^^

Az buĆ§uk anlÄ±yorum. TĆ¼rkĆ§e altyazÄ± eklese keÅke biri š

And it gives me relaxation of mind.

In which order do you add the circles "tip to tail" exactly ? I see that the first one is for n=0, but after ? n=1, or n=-1, or something else ? Great video anyway, thanks !

Awesome animations, love the content on this channel!

Wish you were around 25 years ago, when I was still an undergrad.

Are there any audio or graph data decoders based on similar principles?

Is it with currently avalible formulas possible to efficiently calculate those rotations to final shape with growing speeds / dynamically changing circle sizes also to try reduce setup data?

Great after doing engineering I study from you. Great work.

As always, great video! I was wondering how you'd generalize it with t not being in [0,1] but rather going feom minus to plus infinity. I know it must be possible but I'm not quite seeing how yet. If someone could point me in the right direction that would be great! š

Someone used math like this to make mp3 to midi

But how does this connect to the "winding machine" you discussed in your video on the Fourier transform?

these should be called "springy bois"

This is pure gold for an engineering student like myself. I hope you one day get the recognition you truly deserve for illustrating the ideas this beautifully and clean. Thank you.

Cool

use Google translater please

se puede hacer que los vectores escriban el cĆ”lculo necesario para que los vectores escriban ese cĆ”lculo

Challenge

I just came for pretty pictures and now I have a PhD in Physics $$

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah

This is more satisfying than PUBG!

I don't think there exists something as beautiful as this.

I wish this guy was my math teacher

Can you please please please!!! do a series on real analysis? (or at least lim sup and lim inf concepts).

Hmmmmm

Big brain time

beautifulļ¼

18:40 The moment I wished I could like this video 3000 times. Thank you for this. You are a really special gift for all of us who wish to understand these ideas.

13:08 Ā«this value walks around the unit circle at a rate of *one unit per second*Ā» WRONG

What does "unit" even mean? Anyhow, exp(iĻt) would have one revolution per second, if Ļ = 2Ļ rad/s.

Having just "it" feels really awkward for physicists, since exp would expect some imaginary angle, and not time.

21:11

"…Sort of the mathematical equivalent of giving a smart phone to an overactive child"

Could you generate piano sound with this method? Like additive synthesis.

My goal now is to Fourier my own portrait.

(makes it a bit less narcissistic if you have to calculate 250 integrals after first edge-detecting a photograph and then plotting an svg contour over it.)

Excuse me can somebody help me?

In the video the author says in 21:00 that he uses .svg images to obtain the bidimensional mapping f(t) that draws the picture that he wanted to plot (like the Treble Clef).

Is there perhaps a database with lots of this images and function that I can use for free? How did he manage to transform the picture of Fourier in a function (I don't think he found it in a database)? Is it possible to translate in function every bidimensional picture that I imagine? Does anyone know where I can find some easy information about the mathematics behind .svg images?

I would be really happy in case someone of you could give me any type of help or advise! Thank you very much for your time.

sees piokay well time to start looking for circlesThank you sir for this amazing work. You are helping me so much

"immortals of math"

playboi you didn't even include Hilbert and Grothendieck

That was absolutely beautiful…

Pythagoras, Euclid, Archimedes, Fermat, Newton, Leibniz, Bernoulli, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Riemann, Cantor, Noether, Ramanujan, GĆ¶del, Turing in case anyone is curious

After watching this, it feels like

"Aham Brahmasmi". Love from India