You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

Hi all,

I have this function's shape in mind...

plot y = |(x-5)|^[1-|(x-5)|] from x=0 to 5

Anyone seen this kind of curve before in a similar (i.e. simpler) function? I really had to "mess around" to make it lol!

math is fun! :-D

Prime numbers have got to be the neatest things; they are like atoms. Composites are two or more primes held together by multiplication.

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

Hi;

This is what I got:

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

Yes... so... I'm just wondering if you have seen this shape elsewhere in a simpler function (I'm not considering the rest, just this part of the plot as you got).

Prime numbers have got to be the neatest things; they are like atoms. Composites are two or more primes held together by multiplication.

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

The general shape looks like a skewed Standard Normal Curve. Sort of like the ones that are produced for Chi Square.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

That's true... do you have an equation in mind?

Prime numbers have got to be the neatest things; they are like atoms. Composites are two or more primes held together by multiplication.

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

Hi;

I might be able to fit one of those forms to that curve but why would that equation be better than the one we used to generate the curve?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

Very true. I guess if I represent it as

y = |x|^[1-|x|] from x=-5 to 0

It looks more simple and orderly

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

Hi;

You could simplify that a bit to

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

Whoa! That is good, bobbym. Thank you!

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

I only tested it from -5 to 0, so use with caution.

Mathematica believes that is true for x≤0. I would try to prove that first.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

What type(s) of function(s) would it be? I assume it is a power function and an exponential function.

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

Hi pellerinb;

I am not following you.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

Would it be a power function because it is y = | x ^...|

...likewise, would it be an exponential function because it has a variable in the exponent? Just curious.

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

Hi;

You mean this expression?

You mean is it a function? Or would you like to approximate that with a something else?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,886

bobbym wrote:

Hi;

You could simplify that a bit to

That does not look correct.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

It is a simplification of his answer in post #7. They are algebraically the same but not numerically!

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,886

They are not algebraically the same either!

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

Have you plotted both?

Also

```
FullSimplify[Abs[x]^(1 - Abs[x]) == Abs[x^(1 + x)], {x <= 0}]
True
```

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

bobbym wrote:

Hi;

You mean this expression?

You mean is it a function? Or would you like to approximate that with a something else?

Yup, I mean, is it a function or what kind of function is it?

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,886

Yes, it is a function, but it does not have any particular name.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

Thanks!

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,886

You are welcome.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

It does now have a name.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

It appreciates being addressed by unsaid name.

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,251

The unsaid function is what it shall be called henceforth.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline