/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10652828]

/sci/ do you know any one to one continuous function under C except f(x)=(ax+b)/(mx+n)

[Anonymous No.10652876]

>>10652828
nigger what

why are dumb people not even able to hide their stupidity?

[Anonymous No.10652889]

>>10652876
What makes you say he's dumb?
Did you not understand the question?

[Anonymous No.10652912]

>>10652889
Stupid people often hide their own stupidity by accusing others of stupidity.
It's a well known way of coping seen even in the mentally retarded.

[Anonymous No.10652913]

>>10652828
(ax+b)/(mx+n) isnt one to one or continuous under c you dumbass
x = -n/m isnt even defined

[Anonymous No.10652920]

>>10652828
>one to one
wtf is that

[Anonymous No.10652922]

>>10652889
he can't even ask a proper question
>>10652912
cry more dumb nigger

[Anonymous No.10652930]

>>10652922
so what was wrong with the question?

[Anonymous No.10652934]

>>10652920
google it retard
wow this thread is full of brainlets

[Anonymous No.10652936]

>>10652920
>Doesn't know basic mathematics. Pseud.
>>10652922
This isn't /pol/. Mind your words, white trash cuck.

[Anonymous No.10652940]

Pic related to everyone in this thread

[Anonymous No.10652942]

>>10652940
By definition, this includes you too.

[Anonymous No.10652945]

>>10652936
yikes we got a nigger in thread boys

[Anonymous No.10652947]

>>10652936
>This isn't /pol/. Mind your words, white trash cuck.
this isn't /lgbt/
keep the glitter in your pocket

[Anonymous No.10652951]

>>10652828
isn't the definition of a function require one to one?
There's alot of jargon in this post, hard to understand anything but the function

[Anonymous No.10652968]

>>10652951
>jargon
nigger this is basic terminology:
- one-to-one
- continous
- complex numbers

these are all well known and well defined terms
not sure what you guys are complaining about

>isn't the definition of a function require one to one?
absolutely not
the one in your picture isn't even one-to-one

[Anonymous No.10652989]

>>10652968
ah i thought it may have been referring to the complex plain, but then i saw no imaginary numbers in the equation. Further more the language was 'under c' which led me to wonder if it op was letting the space be variable, i.e the Real numbers are a dimension under C, while the quaternions and octonions would be above. the term 'in c' would've made more sense.

the language one-to-one function confused me as well, in what case is a function not one to one?

[Anonymous No.10653008]

>>10652989
>in what case is a function not one to one?
f(x) = x^2 for example, because f(-1) and f(1) both give 1

[Anonymous No.10653025]

>>10653008
okay i can be behind that, no two different inputs may produce the same output, got it.

can we bind the function to a domain? say x^2 where x >0 ? or would we be breaking continousness?

[Anonymous No.10653741]

>>10652828
Try f(x) = |x^n|*e^(i*arg(x))

[Anonymous No.10654468]

>>10653025
That wouldn't break the continuousness, and that would make it injective (one to one).
Also induces another function from R+ to R+ which is bijective (restricting the end set)

[Anonymous No.10654665]

>>10654468
The property that if [math](x_1, y),(x_2, y)\in f[/math] then [math]x_1=x_2[/math] means [math]f[/math] is one-to-one.
Is there a name for the property that if [math](x,y_1),(x,y_2)\in f[/math] then [math]y_1=y_2[/math]?

[Anonymous No.10655212]

>>10654665
that's a requirement for a function

[Anonymous No.10655945]

>>10652828
sin(x)^ex

[Anonymous No.10656422]

>>10652828
>one to one
say injective, you mong, less ambiguous as one-to-one can be confused with bijective.
Also
[math]f(z) = \bar{z}[/math]
Proof sketch:
[eqn] \lim_{n\to\infty} x_n = x\\

\left|f(x)-f(x_n)\right|=\left|\bar{x}-\bar{x}_n\right|=\left|\overline{(x-x_n)}\right|=\left|x-x_n\right|\to 0[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.10656425]

>>10652828
By the way, the solution to your little calculation is i, as in I put the swag back in science

[Anonymous No.10656433]

>>10656422
Bijective is one to one and onto
(onto is surjective :*))

[Anonymous No.10656445]

>>10656433
correct, it is also verbose, which I personally dislike. I also hate it when lecturers write out things like "for all", "there exists (exactly one)" and "such that". Or worst of all, fully paraphrase a statement that is much more concise with quantifiers

[Anonymous No.10658072]

Literally any strictly decreasing or increasing function