What math notation did you come up with and use on your own?

i have a shorthand for single integrals i call "reverse prime notation". all it is is the same prime you write for derivatives, but placed before the function instead of after. it looks like this:

'(f ± g) = 'f ± 'g
'(f ⋅ g) = 'f⋅g - '('f⋅g')
'(f ⋅ g) = f⋅'g - '(f'⋅'g)
'(f / g) = 'f/g + '('f⋅g'/g²)
'(f(g)⋅g') = 'f(g)

heres what it looks like in practice:

8. ∫ exp(x)⋅sin(x) dx
'(f ⋅ g) = 'f⋅g - '('f⋅g')
f = exp
g = sin
'exp⋅sin - '('exp⋅sin')
exp⋅sin - '(exp⋅cos)
    '( exp(x)⋅cos(x) )
    '(f ⋅ g) = 'f⋅g - '('f⋅g')
    f = exp
    g = cos
    'exp⋅cos - '('exp⋅cos')
    exp⋅cos + '(exp⋅sin)
    I = '( exp(x)⋅sin(x) )
    exp⋅cos + I
I = exp⋅sin - (exp⋅cos + I)
I = exp⋅sin - exp⋅cos - I
2I = exp⋅sin - exp⋅cos
(exp(x)sin(x) - exp(x)cos(x))/2
exp(x)⋅(sin(x) - cos(x))/2

i like it because it 1. represents the "opposite" of the derivative by being on the opposite side of the letter, and 2. makes it much easier to scan through identities to potentially use when solving a problem.

i am curious to see if anybody else has a personal pet notation they use, if so please share

reddit.com
u/completely_unstable — 14 hours ago

anybody interested in letting me try to explain what my paper is about to them?

im at a writers block. im stuck in the prose and i think trying to explain it a second party might help. the paper is about a three-dimensional complex number system. thats my hook and all im going to say here about it, dm me if you want to know more.

reddit.com
u/completely_unstable — 15 hours ago

table of all unique mutually asymmetric arrangements of mines around a number

there are four pictures,

  1. flagged mines with center numbers filled in
  2. un-flagged mines with center numbers filled in
  3. flagged mines with all adjacent numbers filled in
  4. un-flagged mines with all adjacent numbers filled in

"unique mutually asymmetric arrangements" means every possible way for a cell to be surrounded by mines that doesnt flip and/or rotate into any of the other ways. for instance there are only two 1's because it can only ever be touching a mine from the corner or the edge, and all other corner/edge cases are just rotations of those two.

there are 50 total (51 if you count zero. i didnt so that i could make the table be 10x5):

0 cell: 1
1 cell: 2
2 cell: 6
3 cell: 10
4 cell: 13
5 cell: 10
6 cell: 6
7 cell: 2
8 cell: 1

u/completely_unstable — 2 days ago
▲ 25 r/desmos

I made a project that maps out all the various scrolling thresholds in desmos

the red-green-blue ones are when the tick mark numbers change. the next two are how much you scroll in/out by pushing the zoom buttons or using your scroll wheel. the last one is just the default zoom. and at the bottom is a formula determining the tick mark increments for a given zoom level.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/1a48443da1

u/completely_unstable — 14 days ago
▲ 37 r/desmos

DYK that the complex product is constructible with ruler/compass?

0 = 0, 1 = 1, i = i, and P = AB

its rotation-dilation. it makes so much sense, scale the magnitudes, add the angles. which are both things you can do with ruler/compass.

graph including 33 step process here: https://www.desmos.com/geometry/bq5bxsic5o

u/completely_unstable — 1 month ago
▲ 30 r/desmos

3d complex numbers

numbers are in the form:

Z = x + iy + jz

where:

i² = -1
j² = -1
ij = j
ji = i
so i² = j², but ij ≠ ji

this is a true non-trivial geometric 3d extension to 2d complex numbers. this does not contradict Hurwitz's. this is not a "division algebra", but it is an algebraic system. right division "a/b" is multivalued and thus multiplication to the right is not invertible. the division defined here is left division "a\b" and is a unique inversion to multiplication. some properties:

a + b = b + a
a ⋅ b ≠ b ⋅ a
(a + b) + c = a + (b + c)
(a ⋅ b) ⋅ c ≠ a ⋅ (b ⋅ c)
a ± 0 = a
a ⋅ 1 = a
1 ⋅ a = a
a / 1 ≠ a, but
1 \ a = a
a ⋅ (a \ 1) = 1
(a \ 1) ⋅ a = 1

Polar Deconstruction:

Z = x + iy + jz
Z = r (cosθ + u sinθ)
r = √(x² + y² + z²) : absolute value
P = √(y² + z²) : magnitude
θ = tan⁻¹(P, x) : argument
u = (0, y, z) / P : unit imaginary component (u² = -1)

there is more information in the graph: https://www.desmos.com/3d/3xm6ufemvj

also everything was defined as to degenerate into the normal complex 2d functions when z = 0, but there may be some misalignments on the edges of branches. especially inverse trig, which one of i think is on the complete wrong branch. but this is more of a "what would _ look like" kind of thing anyway.

also also purely real negative exponents do not work, but you can approximate via C_pow(z,(-n,0,0.00001))

u/completely_unstable — 2 months ago