u/mse0808

[supprimé]

I owe everyone a clearer explanation, because the first post was confusing on purpose and confusing in a bad way.

What I’m actually working on is not “here’s a random polynomial, please solve it.” It’s a prototype for a symbolic mathematical language / notation system I’ve been building, where expressions can be written using glyph-based coefficients instead of ordinary numerals. The important part is that those glyphs are not decorative — they stand in for a hidden mapping / structured coefficient system that I’m keeping private for now.

So the first post was basically me stress-testing one part of the idea:
If I drop a polynomial written in this notation into a normal math space, what do people assume it is? What breaks first — the algebra, the notation, or the communication?

From the replies, the answer is pretty obvious: the communication broke first 😭 and that’s on me.

To clarify what the project actually is:

• I’m experimenting with a codex-style symbolic layer on top of ordinary algebra.
• The glyph strings like ⟴∴⊚ are intended to represent single coefficients / encoded values, not three separate operators or digits.
• Underneath, the math is still normal algebraic structure — polynomials, transformations, and a custom symbolic framework I’ve been prototyping in code.
• Part of the project is mathematical language design, and part of it is exploring whether the same symbolic system could have uses in computation / encoding / cybersecurity-style obfuscation workflows. Not “I invented unbreakable encryption”, just that I’m exploring whether a hidden symbolic mapping can be useful as a computational layer.

So yes: the criticism that “nobody can solve this if the coefficients are secret” is fair. That was kind of the point of the first post — but I should have said that upfront instead of presenting it like a normal quintic challenge.

What I’m not claiming:

• that I invented a new branch of mathematics
• that glyphs magically make quintics solvable
• that secrecy alone = cryptography
• that a hidden notation is a substitute for rigorous math

What I am doing:

• building a prototype symbolic system
• testing how people parse it
• seeing whether it can be turned into something useful for math tooling, symbolic computation, or encoding/obfuscation research
• learning where the idea is interesting vs where it just looks like nonsense from the outside

If people are interested, I can make a proper follow-up post that explains the structure of the system itself — without revealing the private mapping — in a way that’s actually readable, with:

1. what a glyph token represents,
2. how a polynomial is encoded,
3. what operations are standard algebra vs custom notation, and
4. what parts are research/prototyping vs what parts are just presentation.

And genuinely: thanks to the people who called out the ambiguity instead of pretending it made sense. That was useful.

I've been experimenting with a symbolic mathematics system that uses custom glyphs instead of numeric coefficients.

Can anyone solve, simplify, or analyze the following equation?

⟴∴⊚·x^5 + ∞◦∮·x^4 + ⟴✧⊚·x^3 + ⟴◌⊚·x^2 + 〰∴≈·x + ⟴✦⊚ = 0

The coefficients are represented by symbolic glyphs rather than ordinary numbers.

I'm interested in seeing how people approach it before I reveal the mapping (if I reveal it at all).

Questions I'm curious about:

• Is there anything you can deduce from the notation alone?
• What information would you need to solve it rigorously?
• If you encountered something like this in a research paper, how would you begin reverse engineering the coefficient system?

This is part of a larger symbolic math project I've been working on, so I'm mainly interested in your reasoning process rather than just an answer.