I'm not a fan of their approach to explaining it, but if you look at 08:50, you'll see that the Laplacian² is just the sum of second derivatives in each of your dimensions: f''(x) + f''(y) + f''(z).
I couldn't stomach watching the whole video, so I don't know how they define , and the parametrisation of x_0 representing a sphere on curve seems to become needlessly abstract for the topic of the video.
I’m not a fan of their approach to explaining it
What specifically are you referring to? Also, out of curiosity, why don't you like their explanation?
if you look at 08:50, you’ll see that the Laplacian² is just the sum of second derivatives in each of your dimensions
Well, yes, that is how the laplace operator is defined. That doesn't answer the overarching question, though. Also, just to be pedantic for a moment, saying "Laplacian²" is innacurate. I think you are referring to the nabla as a "laplacian", but it's not called that — the proper term is "nabla", or "del". The operator that is written as a nabla with the superscript of 2 is, in its entirety, referred to as the laplacian.
so I don’t know how they define
They don't (for n-dimensions). That was, essentially, the main issue that I was having.
What specifically are you referring to? Also, out of curiosity, why don't you like their explanation?
The parametrisation of x_0 representing a sphere on the curve seems needlessly abstract for the topic of the video. Even though it looks analogous to the one dimensional basis, it's confusing you.
Also the simile to curvature seems limiting (as evidenced by the confusion at the abstraction to higher dimension), but maybe that's just me struggling to visualise n-dimensional shapes.
The operator that is written as a nabla with the superscript of 2 is, in its entirety, referred to as the laplacian.
You are correct.
They don't (for n-dimensions). That was, essentially, the main issue that I was having.
I'm not aware of any widely used average of n-dimensional parametrisation (other than the Laplacian and perhaps the normal), so the relation seems ill defined. You'll have to check supplementary materials or alternate explanations.
The summary formulation is practically useful for applications.
The parametrization of x_0 representing a sphere on the curve seems needlessly abstract for the topic of the video. Even though it looks analogous to the one dimensional basis, it’s confusing you.
Hm, well, what confuses me about that is that the variables seem to be reused without stating that they are switching their meaning. I presume that $f(x)$ is a stand in for $f(x,y,z)$, and that $x_0$ is referring to the center point of the sphere. But, yeah, it is a strange jump to go from the basic curve to the abstract sphere idea.
Also the simile to curvature seems limiting
It certainly makes it difficult to use that sort of language when one is talking about >4-dimmensional shapes. For anything in 2-space, or 3-space, the terminology should function just fine.
I’m not aware of any widely used average of n-dimensional parametrization (other than the Laplacian and perhaps the normal), so the relation seems ill defined. You’ll have to check supplementary materials or alternate explanations.
Would you be aware of any rationale for why that might be? I was under the assumption that averages are defined regardless of the number of dimensions.
The summary formulation is practically useful for applications.
Which formulation are you referring to?
Would you be aware of any rationale for why that might be? I was under the assumption that averages are defined regardless of the number of dimensions.
I would rather invert the question, why would there be a broadly used definition unless it's useful?
Averages can also be defined in different ways, with medians, logarithmic means, squared means, Root Mean Square , and most of statistics, beyond the simple arithmetic one.
From an intuitive standpoint, how would you even go about to describe an n-dimensional curve as something useful in one dimension (scalar).
What meaningful, direction independent, quantity would you describe to differentiate between a cylinder and a sphere, or other shapes?
And I mean these questions not to be disparaging but as a guide, find a useful quantity and a meaningful formulation and you have created a mathematical tool. Get it to do cool and/or useful things, and people will start using it. As enough people adopt it, it becomes the widely used definition that we can point to the next time someone asks this question.
A simple way is to solve a practical problem with it, a more mathematical way is to express a neat relation, simplify a clumsy proof and/or solve one of the unsolved problems.
Normals are useful as they give the orientation of out (and are also useful in creating subspaces), so when working on finding the outside of surfaces, which we've spent many decades on, it came out as a commonly used tool. They're now also used in Machine learning theory to describe Solution Spaces to Parameter spaces, although I don't know enough to know if it's actually useful or just trendy.
Which formulation are you referring to?
The summary formulation: ∇² = f''(x) + f''(y) + f''(z).
why would there be a broadly used definition unless it’s useful?
Knowledge for knowledge's sake? I find generalizations to be very satisfying.
Averages can also be defined in different ways, with medians, logarithmic means, squared means, Root Mean Square , and most of statistics, beyond the simple arithmetic one.
For the sake of this context, both me and the video are referring to the simple arithmetic mean.
From an intuitive standpoint, how would you even go about to describe an n-dimensional curve as something useful in one dimension (scalar).
Hrm, well, it would entirely depend on context.
What meaningful, direction independent, quantity would you describe to differentiate between a cylinder and a sphere, or other shapes?
I don't follow this point. Would it not be entirely context dependent?
And I mean these questions not to be disparaging but as a guide, find a useful quantity and a meaningful formulation and you have created a mathematical tool. Get it to do cool and/or useful things, and people will start using it. As enough people adopt it, it becomes the widely used definition that we can point to the next time someone asks this question.
Imo, this is approaching it from, say, a physicist's, or engineer's perspective, rather than from a mathematicians perspective. Math doesn't need to have direct applied use for it to be interesting.