My criticism isn’t because of his intuition. It’s because of his lack of an explanation or the fluff and blarney he uses in its stead. His explanation of reasoning does not extend to similar problems nor does it really explain the solution method for this exact problem.
All mathamations develop evolving intuition in solving problems. This usually develops as the students learn the algorithms and rote formulas for solutions. For most, mathematics starts with “Ours is not to know the reason why, it’s to invert the divisor and multiply.”
While Mr. BB appears to have an intuition to solve this and other related modulo problems, his explanations never convey any substance for reason, nor foundation for a rote formula that is useful to anyone.
A case in point. You have a degree in mathematics and decades of practiced skill. You have a level intuition that far exceeds the vast majority of college students and most graduates. Yet, Mr. BB’s explanation didn’t trigger much, if any, understanding for the nature of the problem or its solution. If this doesn’t float any part of your banana boat, then no one has a prayer to the banana goddess of hope for any understanding.
Though his comments may be true, they are only true by tautology. They are not very useful for this particular problem, and they are useless for any related problem. No one learns anything from Mr. BB’s Blarney, except how to become a Blarney Master. He is one too. . . . One of the best I’ve seen.
GA