Post and discuss interesting graphs

Holy jebus.

This is a fractal for anyone asking, and it's a fucking crazy one because it has a lot of different fractals within it.

Did you read the description? It's a finite set of points. A massive set, but still finite.

I'm not that guy, but it won't load for me

Good taste, user.
Best formula.

>math.ucr.edu/home/baez/roots/

Fascinating read, thanks for sharing!

How is it taken out of the complex plane?

What are you asking?

These threads are the worst shit on this awful board.
>hurr look at the pretty graph, math is so beautiful!!!
Just fuck off with this bullshit. If you find this interesting, you almost certainly have an 80 iq

(You)

...

...

he's not wrong

thinking the beauty of maths is in uninteresting graph that look vaguely interesting to look is just primitive and shows a complete lack of understanding.

it's an attempt to appeal to the popsci crowd.

>thinking the beauty of maths is in uninteresting graph that look vaguely interesting
This isn't implied in the thread. It's a small part of the beauty of mathematics and this thread is partly dedicated to that small part. Nothing is even preventing you from discussing the underlying mathematics of these graphics in rigorous detail.
Are you a deliberate aggravator or an autist with a superiority complex or both?

...

My animations look pretty but they have a lot of complex theory behind them, linking geometry, topology, differential equations and even particle physics.
The same goes for the other pics in this thread, they look beautiful because there is something deep going on. Sometimes the fact that something so intricate comes up at all is beautiful - who'd have though the set of complex numbers that have a convergent iterated tetration is a fractal? That itself is beautiful and the picture illustrates that well.
Stop being such a cynical elitist and try enjoying maths again.

I missed this one because it's the same as the first but in the opposite direction.
you can see the difference in the collisions between a kink and another kink, or a kink and an anti-kink in animations 3&4.

>Are you a deliberate aggravator or an autist with a superiority complex or both?
if those are the only option then I'll take "utist with a superiority complex"

it's true that the underlying maths can be interesting and beautiful but that is a wholly separate fact from the appearance of the graph.

see above

you guys might as well make a thread about the "most beautiful equation" and then jerk off about which obscure and largely worthless equation has the most integral signs.

graphs and equations are just crude representations of mathematical ideas. it's equivalent to calligraphy written in shit smears.

>who'd have though the set of complex numbers that have a convergent iterated tetration is a fractal?
I would.

>wholly separate fact
No, the shape of the graph comes directly from the underlying mathematical principles. You're an aggressor because you're acting like one, even if it is autism underneath.

(Both of these sentences can be phrased using the subset operator.)

I made this today, infinite triforce

>Are you a deliberate aggravator or an autist with a superiority complex or both?
I'm the original guy and I'd say that I'm both. But it doesn't matter what I am; your thread is still retarded shit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpinski_triangle

yes exactly this

>It's a finite set of points
Yes, but is that due to the computational aspect? Are there cases of dense roots?

...

really makes you think

It looks like a vagina

Why the steps?

How fucking retarded are you?

A finite set of numbers cannot be dense in C

As if scrawled on paper. Just the way I like it.

Made these myself by accident

...

...

...

Last one, I'm getting addicted to making these.

Looks exponential.

Also:
>scatter plot

...

Jesus, I'm not that user, but learn to speak English. He's asking whether there are truly only a finite number of solutions, or instead only a finite number of them was found due to computational limitations.

The article won't load for me, so I don't know if that user's question is dumb, but you apparently don't even understand the question in the first place.

>doesn't discuss the math behind it
Kill yourself

Is there a graph anywhere of this?

Not any of these anons but, >polynomials of degree ≤ 24
...kind of implies a finite set.

I haven't thought about it too hard though.

lol at all the dwarfs visiting that museum. well its asia so

0x
1x
2x
3x
4x
5x
...

Replying to myself
You are right when you include the coefficient restriction though.

>the coefficient restriction
Right. It's been awhile since I dealt with the fundamental theorem of algebra. You've made me think about this just enough to understand the graph now.

...baka

there's only so many polynomials of degree

You are never going to get the answer user.

There are way too many variables to make a comprehensible graph out of it.

But it does tend toward a fractal as you run through more polynomials.

What do you mean by "tend toward"..?

graphs answer uncountable questions simultaneously, and are an excellent introduction for someone who isn't already aware of these concepts. people don't get interested in math by reading back-to-back proofs of the existence of reals. they get interested in math by seeing interesting and somewhat complex things they want to link to more concepts.

to say otherwise is fluffing your intellectual ego. enjoy wanking about your sense of superiority.

graphs are absolutely as valid as symbols for studying and understanding mathematical concepts. your comment is almost entirely senseless rhetoric, but lastly, OP asked for "interesting graphs", not "the best graph" or whatever the fuck you read.

No it doesn't.

If you somehow went through all polynomials from 0 to infinity with coefficients 1 or -1, it would be a fractal.

check link that came with the image you fuck, it clearly shows progression from degree

looks like a mendelbrot set

this just in: fractals are relatable

Neato. Proof?

>Creates post about graphs.
>70 posts in already
>Not a single graph posted in thread.

>cropped picture of a single graph node and 3-4 cut paths
thanks for contribootin to da thred

Proof that variable elimination on Bayesian networks in the worst case is just as hard as 3SAT therefore showing VE is NP-hard

>well its asia so
but the names are in English

enjoy this one

there are better images to use

Oops sorry, I was in a rush yesterday.

It's audio data, amplitude (vertical) vs time (horizontal) gets plotted. You get these patterns when you only plot a fraction of the data points. In these cases only 20 points are plotted every horizontal pixel (there's a fixed time interval between each plotted point).

It's a saw wave dropping in frequency. It's the same as the two plots above, but they have different oscillators (sine and triangle).

In gif related how it looks when zooming in/out. In the middle you can see the triangle waveform appearing.

Sounds like a slow approach to generating moire.

>moire
Ah yes kinda looks like it.
Well, the goal wasn't to get these patterns, I'm making a digital synth. I wanted the plot to be dynamic so the maximum of 20 plotted points per pixel was needed for the larger sound chuncks.

Gif related, dynamic plot when phase distortion effect is applied.

Thread just became twice as awesome. Literally was watching for this.

>what are children

The variables there are fields in spacetime, so a meaningful graph would have to be infinite dimensional.
The only thing that you care about, physically, is the action, which is applied to a field configuration.

Hey guys, not related but...
What is the mathmatical term for a number that is a "multiplier" of another number?

For example if I say what are the multiplers for 10?
and the answer would be 1, 2, 5, 10.

What is this term?

Ty user don't kill yourself

I don't know if you're setting b8 for an elaborate trap, but those are positive divisors.
A is a positive divisor of B for positive integers A and B if A|B.

No, I'm not setting some sort of trap.
I'm just not that fresh at maths.
Thanks for helping :)

Divisors.

>multiplier
What you're asking is what are the numbers you can divide 10 by, and get a whole number.
They're divisors, as in, division.

>Image

Can someone please explain intuitively the correspondence between the bifurcation diagram and the Mandelbrot set?
I don't know complex dynamics.

>intuitively
You've come to entirely the wrong thread.

Why do you think this thread lacks posters who could intuitively explain the correspondence between the bifurcation diagram and the Mandelbrot set?

I think you have unreasonable expectations about what can be explained "intuitively" - something involving fields of math you do not know is certainly not one of them.

It's not a matter of capacity but willingness. This is a thread for appreciating math in pure form. If you don't automatically get it or can't figure it out on your own, you can't appreciate it the way the rest of us do. If you were asking an intelligent question that had a clear-cut answer per mathematics, it'd be the perfect place to ask.

This thread is full of fucking losers who don't know anything, but feel sophisticated when they look at "mathematical" pictures.

An example is this retard No one in any of these threads knows any math

That's a pretty big belief.

for you

the graph is saying
>wew, wew

You're in Veeky Forums m8
I suspect that at least 70% of the userbase is underage.
So don't get surprised

There was a math thread on /v/ that somehow survived the bump limit a couple times

A lot of great stuff was there, and it reminded me why I don't like Veeky Forums.

>If it's not a millenium problem I can't be bothered
>brb porn/anime/shitposting/...

Cutest graph itt