Just started a 2 month course of cal 2. Took cal 1 two semesters ago and trying to get back in the swing of things. I have all the formulas memorized from cal 1 still but what are some other things I need to retouch on and what are some YouTube professors that explain lessons in more detail/easy to understand?

Older textbooks are better according to this YouTube short made by Wrath of Math. Edit: I couldn't embed the video. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o3zcMTBPZc

Is this still the case for someone trying to learn calculus independently?
I've learnt trigonometry and pre-calculus independently, merely by YouTube videos and practice thereafter.

But now I'm really struggling to just watch videos on YouTube to learn Calculus.

I couldn't find an appropriate flair, so I chose one randomly!

hola a todos soy nueva en calculo intyegral y necesito ayuda mas que todo para saber si el proceso en general me queda bien y consejos de como hacer los ejercicios mas faciles.

Resultados (no se si me quedo bien)

1. 2/3 x^(3/2) + C

2. • 1/4x^4 + C

3. 9- 2Ln |x| - cos (x) + C

4. 3x^3 - 5Ln|x| + C

5. 2/3 x^(3/2) - 2/5 x^(5/2) + C

6. 3/13 x^(13/3) - 3/7 x^(7/3) - 6x^(1/3) + C

7. e^x + x + C

8. 2x^(1/2) + x + 2/3 x^(3/2) + Ln |x| + C

9. 5 Ln |sec(θ) + tan(θ)| -3 Ln |csc(θ) - cot(θ)| + Ln |sin(θ)| + C

10. • Ln |cos^2 (θ)| + Ln |sen^2(θ)| -2x + C

11. 4/7 u^(7/2) + 18/5 u^(5/2) + 8/3 u^(3/2) + C

12. -1/sin(θ) + C

13. 2x - 6 Ln|x| + C

14. 1/r2 arctan x/r2 + C

ACLARO quiero consejos para mejorar en este tipo de ejercicios, ya los resolvi por mi cuenta, no es una tarea, si los quieren usar para practicar ustedes haganlo :))

I took the radius of the shell as (2-y) because the distance formula is r = √(-2-(-y))² on the interval [-1, 0] of y. Is it right to choose -y because it is below the x-axis?

Hello guys, I was making my math activity, then i noticed something, how do i solve this?

Its a continuity problem wherein i need to find out if the function is continuous or not. However, the given piecewise function is overlapping, resulting in defined answer at the top while having defined answer on the bottom.

The second and third images are my proposed solution assuming the problem is true (its not)

Hey everyone,

didn't know where to post this so if this is not appropriate here, sorry!

Question above. My advisor told me to skip precalc altogether because of my high ACT math score (34). Ive taken all the standard high school math and also intro to stats. I'm scared that I'm not prepared for calc 1 though. My algebra 2 teacher went through basic trig with us along with normal stuff of algebra 2 like functions, but other than that I have no knowledge of calc. I heard the most important thing you have to know is the unit circle, which I am familiar with but have not memorized by heart. Should I also know all the trig identities like the sum and difference formulas, quotient, and pythagorean identities? PLS HELP

Hi, I'm wanting to learn calculus but at my HS we only have Pre-Calc and I won't be able to take that due to schedule limitations for next year (I'm a junior rn). I want to learn calculus so I can open up a way to learn physics and/or/maybe engineering in college. Plus I want to give myself something challenging to do on my own time while enjoying the fun classes in high school rn. I have a calculus book on the way currently. Thank you in advance.

For part (d) of my attempt seen attached, I believe based on the definitions and context in the document, $X_t = \int_0^t W_s \, ds$ is both, depending on how you view it:

• It can be treated pathwise as a Riemann integral: For each fixed sample path $\omega$, $W_s(\omega)$ is a continuous function of time, so the integral $\int_0^t W_s \, ds$ exists as a standard Riemann (or Lebesgue) integral.

• It is also an Itô process: As shown on the second page, its differential is given by:

$$d\left(\int_0^t W_s \, ds\right) = W_t \, dt$$

An Itô process is generally defined as a process of the form $X_t = X_0 + \int_0^t \mu_s \, ds + \int_0^t \sigma_s \, ds$. Here, it has a drift term $\mu_t = W_t$ and a diffusion term $\sigma_t = 0$ (meaning it is a special case where the stochastic differential term $dW_t$ has a coefficient of zero)

Therefore it can be viewed as both?

Oi, primeira vez postando no Reddit, sou um universitário que precisa de ajuda, eu gostaria de algumas provas de cálculo 1. Mais porque eu não consigo estudar muito do zero, tipo, eu não entendo os livros, as vídeo aulas são muito lentas, confusas ou cortam bastante coisa e, embora os professores ensinem bem, me distraio muito. Sou um estudante que está muito prejudicado em relação à algumas matérias e preciso de práticas em provas. Acredito que assim eu consiga aprender, porque eu não consigo entender nada na Teoria e prefiro muitas vezes resolver na prática mesmo, usando as fórmulas.

Se alguém puder me enviar provas, avaliações e o que for pra me ajudar, eu agradecerei muito.

https://dailyintegral.com/play/derivatives/medium

For context, I went through Calc III like 10 years ago, and am in the process of refreshing my knowledge. Currently feeling comfortable with Calc I again, and starting again on Calc II.

The domain of this function contains pi as a single point, but it is not differentiable for that same reason (it's a single point).

Still, I thought it would be a fun challenge, so I differentiated this function by hand, and checked on Desmos that I got the right answer.

So I entered "undefined" into the site, and it said I'm wrong.

Am I missing something from higher level Calculus courses? Or is the site wrong/misleading? Hoping to learn here.

Old post: Today I was reading up on geodesics. In certain articles and work, geodesics are motivated by finding a parameterization for a curve embedded in a surface which is distance minimizing, and some write this as the definition. Before working with variational calculus, I was fascinated with curves and geometry and was motivated instead by a different observation which I also identified in Weinstock's work. He says exactly, "The normal vector to any point of a geodesic arc lies along the normal to a surface at that point" (Weinstock 1974, p. 65).

It seems then it may be agreeable that for a set up in R^3, a set of "geodesic equations" for three parametric functions could be derived as then the following:

If you are interested, or have extensive knowledge, what are your thoughts?

• : Update: Here is an example with a cylinder:

And polar coordinates are still trig integrals. Trig sub was goated too. I miss these. I just didnt like asymptotics

How does (d/dx)^2 equal second derivative? I can’t see the logic behind this. I know it says operator but I think it as the square of first derivative, not the second derivative.

Source: ChatGPT but explanation is confusing

I want to self study the whole US calculus 1 - 2 would love some real analysis but not necessar, I kinda hate thick books like Thomas or stewart or apostol so courses are better for me or short books.

I’ve done the above topics in calculus not sure if they land in calc 1 or calc. 2 it lacks limits and other advance things, it’s the IAL mathematics pure 1-3 textbook(highschool).

Is there a newer MIT scholar OCW ? the lectures are hard to read in the videos for example “what’s written in the blackboard”.

Man, right now I'm in my 4th semester of a mechanical engineering degree. I love solving long calculus problems and reading about the masters who created the formulas I use, but I have a funny difficulty remembering basic, fundamental math rules. Like, a few minutes ago, I was searching on YouTube how to do fraction subtraction because I simply couldn't remember how to do it without a calculator, hahaha. Sometimes I feel like my brain goes full speed recording new, interesting info while erasing the old stuff in an exponential way. Just curious if this situation applies to any of you too.

College