/sci/ - Science & Math

Any fraction of two polynomials with the same coefficient of the highest power. So, say, x^4+3x / x^4+13x^3+12x^2+11x+954

>>5974964
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+%3D+tanh%28x%29%2C+y+%3D+tanh%282x%29%2C+y+%3D+tanh%285x%29%2C+y+%3D+tanh%2810x%29

thank you guys. i think i'll go with the tanh-approach, provided that it doesn't need significantly more processing power than the polynomial one.

>>5974976
that's so gay, just use x^(1/n) as n gets bigger

>>5974976
tanh is approximated using polynomials

>>5974981
it depends on the language. I know LISP does not use polynomials for it.

>>5974986
you are clearly retarded

whether it's as a library call, or in hardware, tanh will be done through polynomials

>>5974993
no it will not.

>mfw that thread
i hope everyone in this thread (including OP) is trolling and i'm the dumb one.
>>5974964
<span class="math">x \mapsto 1-e^{\lambda x}[/spoiler]

>>5974966
>>5974967
>mfw


>>5974964
<span class="math">x \mapsto 1-e^{-\lambda x}[/spoiler] for lambda a positive real number.

>>5974997
what a strong argument.

What is the instruction set that you processor use, anon ?

f(x) = 1 - 1/x, x != 0

>>5974997

Tell us how computers do it then. I'm really curious how you imagine computers work

>>5974964

1 - a/x, vary a

>>5975043
I can't believe it took 9 posts for OP to get an actual answer.
>mfw tanh and rational fractions

>>5975322
just use the tan function

>>5975322
same here.

>>5975320
>>5975325
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.
There are already numerous answers.
And without more precisions, I would say >>5975043 is the more accurate.

But no, we need 2cents more :

f(x)=e^(2e)*tanh(sqrt(((a*x)^2-a*x+1))^(exp(2a*x))
change a to change the degree of steepness

>>5975363
when you quote a message, one can trust that you're referring to it...

I'm having a hard time understanding the link in this situation.

f(x) = 1 - exp(-k*x), for x > 0

Where k is the steepness of the tangent from the starting point.

Why is everyone complicating things so much?

A simple exponent is enough, you don't need tanh's or long as shit formulae.

>>5975488
Oops, k isn't the steepness, but rather the x value at which the tangent from the starting point reaches the value 1.

>>5975488
>Why is everyone complicating things so much?
lel.
>>5975043
>Why everyone replies without reading before ?

Already pointed by >>5975368