I think I just discovered new mathematics. What happens if we have a function like this:

So let's see, f(1) = 1.0.5403...
Oh wait, that doesn't make any fucking sense.

Or does it, what if decimals have decimals, called sub-decimal integers?

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...

How old are you?

Actually, they are sub-decimal integers as per user's Dot hypothesis, see .

You made me laugh OP. You are still retarded though.

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

What? Why would it fall apart?

/thread

as I see it

comp sci. its my 1st year

>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

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?

That's just called the next decimal place.

retard.

Is the function differentiable at pi/2?

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.

good idea.

>lets sadistically bump this over and over so his shame wont archive.

nice

In all seriousness, I could get behind this notation. I'd love to write 0.cos(x) instead of cos(x)/10.

its actually a good idea.

never thought of that.

but u are mistaking the decimal as some sort of operation.

this is almost as breakthrough as -1/12 op

so this... is the power.. of user math..

it looks like a bad 90s haircut

F(X) = X+0.1cos(x)

>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?!

/thread

I havent laughed this hard at a thread in weeks

o i am laffin

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]

[math] f( a_1 ) = a_1 + \frac{cos(a_1)}{10} [/math]

Then add a non zero decimal [math]a_2[/math]

[math] f( a_1.a_2 ) = a_1.a_2 + \frac{cos( a_1.a_2)}{100} [/math]

Then notice that

[math] f( a_1. a_2 a_ 3 ... a_n) = a_1. a_2 a_ 3 ... a_n + \frac{cos( a_1. a_2 a_ 3 ... a_n)}{10^n} [/math]

Then compute

[math] \lim_{n\to\infty} f( a_1. a_2 a_ 3 ... a_n) = \lim_{n\to\infty} a_1. a_2 a_ 3 ... + \frac{cos( a_1. a_2 a_ 3 ...)}{10^n} = a_1. a_2 a_ 3 ... [/math] [math] \square [/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.

where did the 10^n come from?
also e*cos(e)=/=e

>also e*cos(e)=/=e

Yes but e.cos(e) does equal e. I just proved it.

Where is the faulty reasoning though ? His function is not clearly defined ?

agreed

kek

we have a winrar

kekklez

top kek

This is the worst idea since -1/12.

Or are they infinitesimals?

K

;^)

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.

like this?

x+c/10+o/100+s/1000+(/10000+x/1000000+ )/10000000

This entire thread reminds me of this

youtube.com/watch?v=tmRHy3cu31M

The interesting thing comes when you're using non repeating rational numbers. Then the function get's really weird.

Dude, weed.

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

But that get's me thinking.. what if we actually graph a function like

f(x) = xcos(x).x

It will look like the line y=x but with discontinuities jumping everywhere.

or let's make it weirder

f(x) = xcos(x).xtan(x)

kek

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.

You don't know what the range of cosx is do you bb

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?

You need to take into account that it will be quite different for different base systems.

I think he's accounting for x having a decimal string of it's own.

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

how would you know?

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.

wtachu mean boi

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

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.

Could call it Appended Base Expantion

what about [math] x \sin ( \frac{1}{x} ) [/math]

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

Something like this. It's a slightly waved straight line.

Forgot to attach pic. Nice I got trips

It's called 0.1*cos(x)

No dude fuck that shit, plot this:

f(x) = xcos(x).xtan(x)

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.

Is the point decimal or multiplication?

Does it look differentiable at pi/2?

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.

>non-pi multiples of pi

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

Can you use it on this? Notice the intersections in the triangles and the triangle of pascal

Is this your architecture drafting practice?

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)

Good reading comprehension, faggot.

=(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.

Did you have to be rude to people senselessly?

>non repeating rational numbers

...also known as the irrational numbers?

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.

1.300000....
?

No different from 1.3 physics get out.

>physics
1.30000... is the full number.
every rational number repeats.

That's actually easy to solve.

A better example of a "new" branch is:

x^x factors.

well the see this
and everything in this thread is useless

[math]
f(x) = x + \frac{g(x)}{10^{\lfloor log_{10}(g(x)) \rfloor + 1}} = x.g(x)
[/math]

pleb

How does the first part of x.cos(x) work?

let x = 1.451032, then cos(x) = 0.1195

so x.cos(x) = 1451032.01195

would that be correct?

why cant we just do x = 1.45103200000000000000 and have the number be

x.cos(x) = 1.45103200000000000000.01195

edit

x.cos(x) = 145103200000000000000.01195

OP didn't think much about it but it is better for . to be a concatenation.

So if x is 1.451032 and cos(x) is 0.1195 then
x.cos(x) = 1.45103201195