Unify principles of two formulae

  • Thread starter Thread starter Twinbee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formulae
Twinbee
Messages
116
Reaction score
0
What's the most mathematical elegant way of converting the numbers on the left (x) to the numbers on the right (y). Note that the numbers don't have to be exactly the same, as long as the property of how the numbers act is left intact - so that numbers (x) closer to 1 act as the formula 1/(1-x) = y, while numbers (x) closer to 0 act as the formula that twice as many zeros equals half the amount of y:

In other words, I want to unify these formula to act as one 'master formula'. So there you go, convert x to y:

0.00000000000000000000000000000001 --> 0.0125
0.0000000000000001 --> 0.025
0.00000001 --> 0.05
0.0001 --> 0.1
0.01 --> 0.2
0.1 --> 0.4
0.5 --> 0.75
0.9 --> 4
0.99 --> 40
0.999 --> 400
0.9999 --> 4000
0.99999 --> 40000
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just managed to solve it. For those who don't want to see the answer, it's below.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1/logBase2(1/x) = y
 
Any "mathematically elegant" way of solving such a problem would start by specifying exactly what "unify principles" means and what "act as the formula that twice as many zeros equals half the amount of y" means. I think once you had done that, the formula would be apparent.
 
"Mathematically elegant" in this context would be perhaps the simplest/smallest way of converting between the two.

The solution I found seems to be the best bet as you can see.

I'll rephrase "act as the formula that twice as many zeros equals half the amount of y".

to:

"so that twice as many decimal places in x translates to a geometric halving in y". If that still doesn't make it clear, then you should see the pattern after a quick scan of the numbers in my first post.

===========================

EDIT:

a: oops, you didn't ask me what "mathematically elegant" was anyway.

b: I'll be honest, and say that in place of "numbers (x) closer to 0 act as the formula that twice as many zeros equals half the amount of y", I originally had 1/logBase2(1/x) = y. It only ocurred to me afterwards that this formula works for the whole range anyway, and is thus the solution.
 
Last edited:

Thread 'Trouble understanding an online solution to an exercise in Dummit & Foote'

##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
View full post »

Thread 'Questions about non existence of GCDs vs (coimages, cokernels)'

The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
View full post »

Thread '##(A/\mathfrak{a})_{\mathfrak{p}/\mathfrak{a}}## and its isomorphism?'

I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
View full post »

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top