GRAPHS

>>8975863
That's not a function.

>>8975863
x = sin(y)/y

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/gielgoyzm2

>>8975866
Yes it is.

>>8975879
No it's not.

>>8975879
That is not a function.

>>8975879
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_line_test
PLEASE

>>8975890
>>8975912
>>8975913
The graph is for a function of y you dumb fucking niggers

To all of you smug faggots saying it's not a function.

A graph implies a relationship between two quantities, just because your high school textbook only has shown you a nice vertical y axis with y being a function of x, doesn't mean that this always has to be the case.

Don't be faggots. Learn math instead of arbitrary textbook semantics.

>>8975890
>>8975912
>>8975866

>>8975875
ok so i'm getting closer, this site is fucking awesome
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wmlblyfoyj
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/s1l6fhfpaw

so how can i take https://www.desmos.com/calculator/kxtrzfaje5
and have it run at a 30 degree angle through the center?

I know this may sound weird as shit, but this is going to be the basis for a next generation fractal antenna

L2differentiate function && relation git gud scrubs

Would that not just be x=-cos(y) in an interval of [-3pi/2, 3pi/2]?

>>8975866

Here, ladies and gentleman, we have a rare situation where the first post is the worst post. He is strictly correct only insofar as the OP is a /graph/, a picture/, which is distinct from a function, but I will not be so charitable as to suppose that he really had that in mind - the OP properly distinguishes between functions-as-such and their graphs in his original language, which puts the lie to the first post's misunderstanding-objection, so that he cannot backpedal and plausibly claim to have understood what I just pointed out. He (the first post) has his own confusion, is the point.

OP your picture might be interpreted as a (graph of) an even function x of the variable y on some appropriate finite interval, perhaps something like x = f(y) = -a cos y + b for appropriate a and b. An equivalent statement could be obtained by using a sine instead, with appropriate shifting of argument. However, looking closer at the graph suggests that this would only be an approximation. What is really at issue is what is /meant/ by the picture. Do you want a function that looks as close to the picture as possible? If so, then the above is simply an approxmation, which could be improved with other terms by studying the picture itself.

The reason why other people are

>>8975920
A function has to have only one vertical output for all horizontal inputs. If this were a function of y, then x will be the vertical component. The image "curvething.jpg" shows the vertical axis labelled as y, so this is not a function.

Stop being a pretentious know-it-all.

File: It+s+good+bait+though+_f5abdfdf6e970a5d58b0ddbbb1e8519d[1].jpg (5KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x200px

>>8976020
7/10, I typed out an angry reply telling you exactly how retarded you are

>>8976042
Its not a function. I told you why. If you have a real argument why it is a function, then let me know.

>>8976020
Let me blow your mind and show you that you can change axis at your Will.

Instead of f(x) you type in f(y)

Also, the vert line test is shit because what about polar or cylindrical cords?

>>8976046
A function from A to B is a subset of A x B such that every a in A appears in exactly one pair (a,b). We let f: A -> B be a function; the term f(a) = b denotes the value of f at a, which is b.

The defining property of a function is that for every value in A, we have one and only one associated value in B. If a value in A goes to more than one value in B, it's not a function.

It has nothing to do with graphs or horizontal and vertical axes. These are just arbitrary conventions that you are taught in high school.

>>8976020
you fucking wretched piggot. I need to catch my breath because of how retarded you are.

Shit

You're such a bitch

>>8976051
>>8976051

If it were the function f(y) = sin(y)/y , then the vertical component would be x and the horizontal component would be y. This is not the graph displayed in "curvething.jpg".

>>8976054
That's exactly my point. When x = 0, there are 4 values for y. Since the horizontal component is x, then the function would be f(x). like I just said f(0) has 4 values, so this is not a function.

This is a relation. One of the definitions of a function is that a function must be a one-to-one relation.

Remember, All functions are relations, not all relations are functions.

>>8976074
>One of the definitions of a function is that a function must be a one-to-one relation.

Sorry, this is not true.

I agree tho, its a relation. These uneducated faggots don't know the difference, so just stop and let them have their "victory" jerk off session when you stop replying.

>>8976017
I was hoping this would be pasta but after reading the first line it dawned on me that this poster did in fact just put his severe autism on display for all to see.

>>8976085

You are better served with wondering whether anything that I have said is actually wrong or not, than by Sniping At Tone. Oh no, someone has written clearly and placed things in their proper context, how terrible.

The extreme confusion in the rest of the thread suggests that the OP might be a solid 7/10 troll. (Even the piggot-poster has regrettably posted ITT, but this appears to be a situation where his insult is warranted, at least). There's basically two or three distinct avenues for possible confusion, most of which I'd addressed above, which are partially discussed and otherwise confused in most of the rest of the posts in this thread.

>>8976098
They just don't know the difference between a function and a relation.

Instead of using the ol' noodle ball to explain their stance coherently, they resort to name calling and shaming.

SAD!

>>8976098
OP here, holy shit this is fucking awesome. yeah not actually a troll im in the process of designing an antenna but i'm fucking terrible with basic math antenna theory on the other hand is really easy for me.

>>8976098
I ended up with r= - (sin y / y) * phi thanks to
>>8975869

>>8975920
Who the fuck ever uses x for the output and y for the input?

>>8976256

It is true that this is not common practice in western math education. But if it causes you the slightest difficulty to reverse the roles of the symbols, for the purposes of discussion, then you are /truly/ a brainlet, in a sense in which the epithet is rarely warranted on this board. Indeed if you haven't understood at a certian point that the symbols are immaterial, then you've understood very little indeed.

It was not even necessary that the OP's graph be visually oriented in such-and-such a way, for example. What is necessary is that particualr things hang together in such-and-such a way.