Upload Attachments To Conversation

[DerStrom8]

Hi again,

Oh yes, i think there is a limit as to how large you can make the equation/expression maybe? Wonder if there is a spec on that.

If I remember correctly, it is 180 characters.

 

[MrAl]

Hi again,

Oh, that's too bad, so i guess we cant post any ungodly formulas in Latex

 

[DerStrom8]

Kudos if you can graph the above

 

[MrAl]

Kudos if you can graph the above

Hi Matt,

Is that Latex or bitmap?
In any case though, hey you brought up another interesting point there.
The point is that if it was written in pure text, even like 0=x^2+y+1 or something, i could have copy and pasted it into an application and graphed it in maybe 30 seconds to one minute. As a bitmap, i would have to retype every single character and hopefully not make a mistake, in order to graph it. As Latex, i would have to do the same unless i could find a Latex to Text application that would convert it back into pure text so i could paste it into a graphing application.
So having the text version is also a good idea as then it is easier to work with. Latex is good for viewing however.

Is that formula anything interesting?

 

[DerStrom8]

Hi Matt,

Is that Latex or bitmap?

I actually think it's a jpg.

In any case though, hey you brought up another interesting point there.
The point is that if it was written in pure text, even like 0=x^2+y+1 or something, i could have copy and pasted it into an application and graphed it in maybe 30 seconds to one minute.

You'd think so, but many graphing utilities are incapable of completing all of the calculations, at least not in a reasonable amount of time.

Is that formula anything interesting?

Yes it is, hence the kudos if you can graph it

Matt

 

[MrAl]

Hi,

Yeah sometimes 'bitmap' is used as a generic term for 'picture' on the computer because before display it must be converted into a bitmap. But no big deal, i can easily accept 'jpg'.

In light of what i was saying about text vs picture or Latex, is there any chance you can post the pure text version of the expression? I would gladly graph it and post here if you like.
Does it require complex math to graph (ie graph real part and imag part separately, or use the norm of the two for the graph, or just the real part, etc) ?

Should be interesting, but would be difficult if i had to retype that whole formula.

 

[DerStrom8]

Hi,

Yeah sometimes 'bitmap' is used as a generic term for 'picture' on the computer because before display it must be converted into a bitmap. But no big deal, i can easily accept 'jpg'.

In light of what i was saying about text vs picture or Latex, is there any chance you can post the pure text version of the expression? I would gladly graph it and post here if you like.
Does it require complex math to graph (ie graph real part and imag part separately, or use the norm of the two for the graph, or just the real part, etc) ?

Should be interesting, but would be difficult if i had to retype that whole formula.

Ah, gotcha.

Here it is in plain text:

2*sqrt(-abs(abs(x)-1)*abs(3-abs(x))/((abs(x)-1)*(3-abs(x))))(1+abs(abs(x)-3)/(ab‌s(x)-3))sqrt(1-(x/7)^2)+(5+0.97(abs(x-.5)+abs(x+.5))-3(abs(x-.75)+abs(x+.75)))(1+‌abs(1-abs(x))/(1-abs(x))),-3sqrt(1-(x/7)^2)sqrt(abs(abs(x)-4)/(abs(x)-4)),abs(x/2‌)-0.0913722(x^2)-3+sqrt(1-(abs(abs(x)-2)-1)^2),(2.71052+(1.5-.5abs(x))-1.35526sqr‌t(4-(abs(x)-1)^2))sqrt(abs(abs(x)-1)/(abs(x)-1))+0.9

After further research it does look like you can do it with some graphing utilities, but they have to be high-end and be able to accept enough characters (punching it into google will not work).

Matt

 

[MrAl]

Hello again,

Well, this last formula seems to contain syntax errors, and also now i noticed that the first formula contains terms that are ambiguous. For example:
3sqrt(something) does that mean 3*sqrt(something) or does that mean the third root of (something)?
Also:
x0.5 what does that mean?

This does look interesting so it would be nice to plot.
Also, is this to be plotted in reals or any imag's too?

 

[DerStrom8]

Hello again,

Well, this last formula seems to contain syntax errors, and also now i noticed that the first formula contains terms that are ambiguous. For example:
3sqrt(something) does that mean 3*sqrt(something) or does that mean the third root of (something)?
Also:
x0.5 what does that mean?

If it was the cube root, they would not use the sqrt symbol. Therefore I would expect it would be 3*sqrt(something).

x0.5 is probably the same as 0.5x, meaning 0.5*x.

This does look interesting so it would be nice to plot.
Also, is this to be plotted in reals or any imag's too?

I don't believe there are any imaginary numbers in this equation. It should all be reals.

 

[MrAl]

Hi again,

Well the square root sign is really just a 'radical', and that means it can be used for square root or nth root if there is a small number on top of that first peak in the graphic for that symbol.
Have you actually seen this plotted at some point?
It does look interesting so i will attempt to plot it.

 

[DerStrom8]

Hi again,

Well the square root sign is really just a 'radical', and that means it can be used for square root or nth root if there is a small number on top of that first peak in the graphic for that symbol.
Have you actually seen this plotted at some point?
It does look interesting so i will attempt to plot it.

A square root is a square root, not just the radical. Some calculators use a syntax "root(3, 9)" meaning

, though I have seen some (LaTex, for example) that use "[]" brackets in conjunction with the "sqrt" symbol like "sqrt[3]{9}".

I think it's safe to say it is

.

I have seen the completed graph, you may get a kick out of it

Matt

 

[MrAl]

Hi again,

Ok i'll take it as 3 * sqrt(xxx) then, no problem.

But another problem springs up. If you look at the attachment, i have numbered the outside parens according to the count of open and close parens. For example, if we had:
y=(a+2)
then we go from left to right, the first paren is open so we count 0+1=1.
The next paren is a close, so we count 1-1=0. Since we got zero when we reached the end of the expression, the paren open and close counts match, so there are just as many opens as closes, and that means it is syntactically correct with respect to the paren sets.
If on the other hand we get a number that is not zero (such as 1,2,3, or -1, -2, -3) then the paren's are not correct as there is either one more open than close or one more close than open.

In the attachment you can see we end up with +1 which means that there is one more open than close, so there is something wrong with the number of parens as well. One of those opens does not belong or else there is a missing close paren. Can you figure out which it is?

See attachment where the counts are shown for each outside open and close paren. The pic is black and white except for the paren counts which are shown in blue.

BTW did you see the Spock Curve yet?

 

[DerStrom8]

Hi again,

Ok i'll take it as 3 * sqrt(xxx) then, no problem.

But another problem springs up. If you look at the attachment, i have numbered the outside parens according to the count of open and close parens. For example, if we had:
y=(a+2)
then we go from left to right, the first paren is open so we count 0+1=1.
The next paren is a close, so we count 1-1=0. Since we got zero when we reached the end of the expression, the paren open and close counts match, so there are just as many opens as closes, and that means it is syntactically correct with respect to the paren sets.
If on the other hand we get a number that is not zero (such as 1,2,3, or -1, -2, -3) then the paren's are not correct as there is either one more open than close or one more close than open.

In the attachment you can see we end up with +1 which means that there is one more open than close, so there is something wrong with the number of parens as well. One of those opens does not belong or else there is a missing close paren. Can you figure out which it is?

See attachment where the counts are shown for each outside open and close paren. The pic is black and white except for the paren counts which are shown in blue.

BTW did you see the Spock Curve yet?

Interesting. can never trust anything you find on the internet....

I'll need to take some time to copy it to plain text, but it's going to be very time-consuming. It's late, I'll try to take a crack at it tomorrow.

Regards,
Matt

 

[Mikebits]

I don't see anyway to upload attachments when I make a post, and I can't send images from my PC which is a pain. We use to be able to.

 

[DerStrom8]

I don't see anyway to upload attachments when I make a post, and I can't send images from my PC which is a pain. We use to be able to.

Below the reply pane on the right you'll see a button called "Upload a File". You can use that for uploading pictures, and select whether to post it as a thumbnail or the full image.

 

[granddad]

Can you please make an old man happy and click on my conversation file upload option, i don't see it , Tar.

 

[DerStrom8]

Can you please make an old man happy and click on my conversation file upload option, i don't see it , Tar.

Just went to take care of it and looks like someone beat me to it

Does it work for you now?
Matt

 

[KeepItSimpleStupid]

I can't seem to upload in conversations either.

 

[DerStrom8]

I can't seem to upload in conversations either.

Try now.

 

[KeepItSimpleStupid]

The option is now present. Thanks. KISS.