Post cool function graphs

If something like the Cantor function doesn't spring to mind as soon as you see the Cantor set and definition of continuity, math probably isn't the field for you.

:^)

>I've seen the definition, therefore I could have easily come up with it
sure buddy, you probably would have come up with the weierstrass function aswell right?

at least post a pic

...

...

>he thinks it's hard to come up with
brainlets

fucking around with circles is fun

What's the full equation? it's cut off.

i like how none of this is symmetrical

this is one of those function that is still noisy no matter how much we focus
so we can zoom in arbitrarily close
but what if we zoom into the planck length? would it still look like that?

are you asking if numbers can be quantized?
it would look the same

It would look the same. There's no limitation to how far you can zoom in.

What Software are you using?

>what if we zoom into the planck length?
You're talking about some arbitrary physical length in regards to a distance on a graph, this makes no sense.

Graphs of abstract functions aren't measured in metres, just numbers.

Tell ne if I am mistaken. The plank length is a physical limitation, whereas in mathematics there is no real limit.

you don't seem to understand the concept of the real numbers, or what the planck length is
why do you even visit Veeky Forums?

wolfram alpha and desmos

Please, PLEASE be bait.

Yes but you need to prove the Riemann Conjecture for that.

>honest question about something he did not understand
>no snark, no sarcasm
>hoped Veeky Forums would answer it, or give links to where he could read up
>gets this response instead
fuck off, bully

...

Only a fundamentally retarded bait-level user can ask about Planck length outside of physics.

It isn't a limitation, it's just a unit of distance derived from fundamental constants. It's in the area of what we reckon is the smallest measurable length but it's not related to that.

It's real significance is that it is the length scale at which a quantum theory of gravity would be required.

*its

fuck off, niggerit's a decent question

It's a fine question, but it tells us the asker is retarded. I won't fault the question for being itself.

...

>piecewise
1/10

this

It's not a good question, "zooming into the Planck Length" on a graph makes no sense

Make it into one equation and I'll be impressed.

...

Who is this cutie

I tried

Never saw this before. Interesting function

...

Gotta love'em chaotic systems.

...

...

Equations plox.

Noone thought of this?

...

...

...

...

...

Fourier Series.. My nigga.

nobody has thought of that Carlos

Tupper's Self-Referential Formula

i had fun figuring that out

this fine detail shit is fuckin rad

I would pay money if this app can offload the calculation to my local machine to get more detailed graphs.

You can't prove a definition.

>literally just makes every possible combination

[math] f\left( x,y \right)\; =\; -\frac{M_{0}}{\left( \left( x-r_{0} \right)^{2}+y^{2} \right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left[ \begin{array}{c} x-r_{0} \\ y \end{array} \right]-\frac{M_{1}}{\left( \left( x-r_{1} \right)^{2}+y^{2} \right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left[ \begin{array}{c} x-r_{1} \\ y \end{array} \right] [/math]

[math] \frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}\left[ \begin{array}{c} x \\ y \end{array} \right]=f\left( x,\; y \right),\; \frac{d}{dt}\left[ \begin{array}{c} x \\ y \end{array} \right]=v_{0},\; \left[ \begin{array}{c} x \\ y \end{array} \right]=p_{0},\; t=0...2000 [/math]

Unfortunately, it doesn't account for the motion of the two massive objects, meaning no Lagrange points. I am still trying to do that.

Beautiful

What software?

Both you stop being insuferrable autists. People have questions that dont make sense, deal with it without being pompous asses

>parametric
get out

I want a function whose graph is its own symbolic expression.

For example, if the graph of [math]y = x^2[/math] visually looked like [math] y = x^2 [/math].

Circles in a finite field (F_431 I think), a friend and I were thinking of what we could say about geometry on finite fields a while ago but we didn't find time to get into it

Completely impossible.

There are computer programs that output their own syntax. So I wouldn't dismiss it so outright.

You're right.

Is this...is this real? lol

Lel it's real.

I went on wolfram and found a curve that looks like spongebob and wolfram gave me the formula to it, but it's hundreds and hundreds of lines long.

How does Wolfram calculate something like that? How does it know how to do that?

The trick is to divide over the parts you don't want in the range you don't want them.

We had to make the batman equation you gave above into one equation in my high school precalc class years ago but I have absolutely no memory of how to do it.

It wouldn't be a function if it had the property he describes.

Sorry to be so technical but...isn't that not a definition? It's an axiom of ZFC, yes?

Good point.

What if he had said a relation in R^2 instead?
Is there a good reason why that would be impossible?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupper's_self-referential_formula

This does exactly what you've asked. And there are infinitely many other ways to expand on it.

Yes, but it's not a function. I was being pedantic, but still

No I realize you're right. It frustrates me when professors and sometimes textbooks neglect the distinction.

that's just a plotting artifact.

Just get something like WinPlot or Maxima or pirate something like Mathematica

Someone creates it and saves it. Simple shapes are easy to figure out in parametric form, you can also use something like Mathematica's "manipulate" or Desmos' "tremendous faggotry" to create a general form of a piece you want and screw around from there.

It's not an axiom of ZFC.

Get an image
Apply edge detection and shit, get a bunch of lines.
Delete lines you don't need.
Use some sort of automatic line curve equation generator.
??????
PROFIT

How do I reflect [math]y = x^{x}[/math] about the y-axis m8s

I need to use complex numbers right

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Solve 1 = -|x|^-|x|

Well shit. Would complex numbers even work?

Someone should answer this for him.

(-x)^(-x)

y3 was -(x^(-x))

x^x = -x^-x can only have the solution x=iPi/2ProductLog(iPi/2)

Here

jesus fucking christ this board sometimes.

desmos.com/

Enjoy, fampai.

That's not the question though.

The question is for what values of x, either real or complex, can |-x|^|-x| be a positive real number?

For example, what value of x satisfies |-x|^|-x|?

He is asking about flipping over the y-axis, not the x-axis.

Well what is it? What value of x, either real or complex above will result in a positive real number?

The complex numbers are closed under exponentiation.

So there should be a solution to -|x|^(-|x|) = 1.

What is the solution?

I'm also quite interested in the minimum point on the [math]y = x ^{x}[/math] graph, which looks to be around x = 0.36... and either lower or higher values always give you a higher y-value. I know I'm quite a math noob but it seems like this point is probably significant in some way outside of the x^x curve and may have some weird properties, although I'm really not sure. It's just interesting to me that you put in something seemingly quite abstract like x^x and get out a very real definite, yet probably irrational number.

x^x's minimum is at 1/e.

What do you mean "For example, what value of x satisfies |-x|^|-x|?"