Period of non trigonometric functions

phymatter
Messages
131
Reaction score
0
is there any definite way of finding the period of non trigonometric functions?

can we use f(x+t)=f(x) and solve for t from this equation?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Most functions are not periodic. If the above equation holds for all x then f is periodic with period t. So yes solve for t.
 
deluks917 said:
Most functions are not periodic. If the above equation holds for all x then f is periodic with period t. So yes solve for t.

but when we do so , we get t in terms of x ,so how does this give the period of the function?
 
You shouldn't, no. You want something of the form \forall x,\ f(x)=f(x+\text{foo}) where the string of symbols that make up foo are t. Of course you also need that t is not zero to call it periodic, so if the string of symbols was "x-x" then you haven't shown what you wanted to show.

Also please conserve question marks; some children in <insert third-world country> can't afford more than one a day and it looks bad to be so wasteful.
 
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...
Thread 'Imaginary pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top