I think I just discovered new mathematics. What happens if we have a function like this:
f(x)=x.cos(x)
Yes that "." between the x and cos(x) is a decimal, but what will it look like if you graph it? How would you take the derivative or integral of something like this? Maybe I just thought of new math?!
I started doing this in middle school for fun. You didn't discover anything.
Isaiah Roberts
"user's Dot"
William Hall
f(x)=x+0,1cosx
Owen Turner
I must know what you're majoring in.
Owen Sanders
So let's see, f(1) = 1.0.5403... Oh wait, that doesn't make any fucking sense.
Brody Torres
Or does it, what if decimals have decimals, called sub-decimal integers?
Nolan Nelson
You're just adding cos(x) to x if x is an integer and if it isn't then you're gonna get like 5.4.cos(5.4) which is nonsense...
Christian Perez
How old are you?
Brody Lewis
Actually, they are sub-decimal integers as per user's Dot hypothesis, see .
Jaxon Russell
You made me laugh OP. You are still retarded though.
Ethan Garcia
This falls apart if x > 10, needs to be defined as some kind of piecewise function with increasing powers of 10 in the denominator
[math]x + \frac{\cos{x}}{10}[/math] if x < 10 [math]x + \frac{\cos{x}}{100}[/math] if 10
Adam Gonzalez
What? Why would it fall apart?
Julian Hill
/thread
Cooper Cox
as I see it
Noah Stewart
comp sci. its my 1st year
Liam Watson
>Hello guys. Today we are going to learn about concatenation in Java. Here is the task: Write a """program""" that takes two numerical strings and then concatenates the digits of one string as the decimals for the first string, and returns this new string
>HOLY FUCK I JUST INVENTED NEW MATH CALL THE PRESS
Ian Davis
I don't think STEM is for you, have you considered switching to Women's Studies or some other major that only requires a single digit IQ?
William Torres
That's just called the next decimal place.
retard.
Wyatt Phillips
Is the function differentiable at pi/2?
Ethan Perry
this poor OP has got to wish so hard that he could delete this post... poor guy.
lets sadistically bump this over and over so his shame wont archive.
Hunter Williams
good idea.
Angel King
>lets sadistically bump this over and over so his shame wont archive.
nice
Thomas Roberts
In all seriousness, I could get behind this notation. I'd love to write 0.cos(x) instead of cos(x)/10.
Robert Cruz
its actually a good idea.
never thought of that.
but u are mistaking the decimal as some sort of operation.
Bentley Cruz
this is almost as breakthrough as -1/12 op
Grayson Reed
so this... is the power.. of user math..
Noah Jackson
it looks like a bad 90s haircut
Ryder Long
F(X) = X+0.1cos(x)
Bentley King
>f(x)=x.cos(x)
You have to show how it works.
Hey guys x#cos(x) it does something but idk what, and I certainly can't think deeply enough to graph it myself, so show me how it does something. # does (something familiar) so maybe I just thought of new math?!
Eli Long
/thread
Grayson Richardson
I havent laughed this hard at a thread in weeks
Chase Edwards
o i am laffin
Ayden James
Therem: If x is an infinite decimal that does not equal a finite decimal then x.cos(x) = x
First consider the arbitrary integer [math]a_1[/math]
Fuck, thanks for the PhD thesis OP. I had been stucked in this shit for months. No idea what to prove. You gave me an easy answer, my paper is already up in arxiv. I will gift you this first theorem I proved though.
Brody Wilson
where did the 10^n come from? also e*cos(e)=/=e
Jose Thomas
>also e*cos(e)=/=e
Yes but e.cos(e) does equal e. I just proved it.
Nicholas Price
Where is the faulty reasoning though ? His function is not clearly defined ?
Caleb Ramirez
agreed
Luke Watson
kek
we have a winrar
Tyler Murphy
kekklez
Daniel Watson
top kek
Dylan Lee
This is the worst idea since -1/12.
Gabriel Ross
Or are they infinitesimals?
Benjamin Morgan
K
;^)
Ryan Evans
op i just want to say i've never thought of this before and its pretty cool.
lateral thinking and creativity is the path of the genius, and even this doesnt lead to something new its a unique way of thinking about things which is just what we need.
glad you posted it, and dont mind the braindead robots who can't compute, creativity left them long ago, we can only pity them now.
The interesting thing comes when you're using non repeating rational numbers. Then the function get's really weird.
Jayden Russell
Dude, weed.
Leo Hill
OP here
here's my thereom
let f(x) = g(x)
g(x) = n(x).T(x) = n(x) + (T(x)/10)
if and only if 0 < T(x) < 1
T(x) are functions like cos, sin, tan etc...
You cannot use the notation if it's something like:
f(x) = x.3x because
f(x) = x.3x =/= x + (3x/10)
3x is never 0 < T(x) < 1
QED
so maybe I'm onto something, maybe we can replace the + operator using only decimals, we must first define some rules for it to work though like my theorem
Matthew Jones
But that get's me thinking.. what if we actually graph a function like
f(x) = xcos(x).x
Hunter Hall
It will look like the line y=x but with discontinuities jumping everywhere.
Jacob Ramirez
or let's make it weirder
f(x) = xcos(x).xtan(x)
Bentley Cook
kek
Parker Reyes
I think you're still just getting the function xcos(x) with discontinuities every place that xcos(x) is non-repeating rational number. The positioning of the discontinuities would be interesting though.
Jaxon Kelly
You don't know what the range of cosx is do you bb
Ryder Moore
so then I just invented new math, it gives us random discontinuities which is probably useful for random analysis and probability, what should we call this new maths?
Justin Bailey
You need to take into account that it will be quite different for different base systems.
Elijah Martin
I think he's accounting for x having a decimal string of it's own.
Adrian Ortiz
Wouldn't this work for other funcions too besides cos, sin etc? Because since a is a natural number between 0 and nine, the maximum number it could generate is 9.99999... so for any kind of function, if you calculate the limit as n approaches infinity for f(a_n) the number a(1).a(2)a(3)... would eventually converge to 10 while 10^n would approach infinity and the term disappears. So you could generalize this theorem a little more I think
Henry Parker
how would you know?
Christopher Mitchell
Because it affects the position of decimals (not always base ten you know what I mean). Moving and appending decimal points should make it base dependent. Just a hunch could be wrong here.
Robert Cruz
wtachu mean boi
Brandon Diaz
You also haven't accounted for the f(x) in g(x)=x.f(x) being negative. you need a convention like abs(f(x)) of the the negatives reduce the decimal string, wither a a wrap around like 2.(-2) = 2.8 or 2.(-2) = 1.8
Carson Murphy
maybe... but that negative could potentially mean something, we just have to experiment and find out if it means anything. It might mean something different.
Brandon Morgan
Could call it Appended Base Expantion
Oliver Rivera
what about [math] x \sin ( \frac{1}{x} ) [/math]
Bentley Allen
so x=cos.&6^ > y%? I'm totally into your new math can you comprehend mine a little? 2x=y7 squared man2 power of 4% -=)ldrt:D
Dylan Thompson
Something like this. It's a slightly waved straight line.
Aiden Hall
Forgot to attach pic. Nice I got trips
Hudson Turner
It's called 0.1*cos(x)
Connor Hill
No dude fuck that shit, plot this:
f(x) = xcos(x).xtan(x)
Christian Diaz
You all are fucking retarded. Cos(x) is less than 1 for all non-pi multiples of pi. ".cos(x)," as you have so loosely called it, would simply be the identity function for all non-pi multiples of x. At pi-multiples, ".cos(x)" would cycle through the values .1, 0, -.1, and 0. I shouldn't kill this thread, though, so that the retards can have their containment thread.
Aaron Bell
Is the point decimal or multiplication?
Jacob Robinson
Does it look differentiable at pi/2?
Evan Gonzalez
Kind of bizarre you are calling everyone retarded when thats the last thing I would have guessed as the meaning of this undefined nonsense, especially when you talk with terms like "would simply be" as if theres a canon way to interpret things made up on the spot.
Ian Flores
>non-pi multiples of pi
Brandon Price
But that still doesn't matter. For any [math] x \in [\mathbb{R}] [/math] x.cos(x) will also yield a real (obviously) Because cosx is always
Joseph Phillips
Can you use it on this? Notice the intersections in the triangles and the triangle of pascal
Jaxson Green
Is this your architecture drafting practice?
Adrian Bell
No, its a sketch. I'm working on perspective calculation. I think it has something to do with this.
>1=(0+1;2-1;3-2; till infinity)
And 1÷3= .3333333333333333 (till infinity)
Joshua Rogers
Good reading comprehension, faggot.
Christian Morgan
=(0+1, 2-1,3-2,... till infinity) First, shouldn't it be 1=(1-0, 2-1, 3-2,... An-1 - An) Second... Why?
>1÷3= 0.3333333333333333... >Infinitesimals
>perspective calculation desu no idea what that means.
Owen Hughes
Did you have to be rude to people senselessly?
Bentley Robinson
>non repeating rational numbers
...also known as the irrational numbers?
Kayden Mitchell
1/3 is repeating, 1.3 is not repeating if there are an infinite amount of decimal places OPs function is the same as the input.
Lincoln Flores
1.300000.... ?
James Foster
No different from 1.3 physics get out.
Nathan Rogers
>physics 1.30000... is the full number. every rational number repeats.
Austin Miller
That's actually easy to solve.
A better example of a "new" branch is:
x^x factors.
Charles Carter
well the see this and everything in this thread is useless