Can all patterns in 3D have an equivalent equation in polynomial?

flamingyawn
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Please Help me out with this one.

Can all patterns in 2D or 3D, have an equivalent equation in polynomial?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Would you like to elaborate on what you mean by that?
 
for example the is a pattern in 3 Dimensional form. An obviously repeating or sequence of pattern like fractals. Can we create an equation for that pattern in polynomial?
 
flamingyawn said:
for example the is a pattern in 3 Dimensional form. An obviously repeating or sequence of pattern like fractals. Can we create an equation for that pattern in polynomial?

Would it count if a pattern were the result of an exponential or trig function? y = sin x is a pretty nice 2D pattern, but it's not generated by any polynomial. If you wanted 3D you could do something similar.
 
Actually, I can't think of any repeating pattern that would be represented by a polynomial (at least in Cartesian coordinates). Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "have an equivalent equation in polynomial". Did you have some particular example in mind when you asked this question?
 
I thought for a second that maybe the OP meant to ask if the patterns be generated in polynomial time, but I re-read the first post and I doubt he did mean that.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top