|
x + y = x, solve for X (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by zarathustra
A song can likely be represented by a Fourier series so the derivative would be very similar to the original, changed by time- shift and amplification. |
You're right in the sense that the frequency spectrum would be literally identical, but the magnitudes of those frequencies would be all ed up. The higher frequencies would dwarf the others in magnitude.
Remember that d(sin ax) = a cos ax. Think of it this way, let's say there's just a few frequency components: 100 Hz, 1 kHz, and 10 kHz. Differentiate that, and your 10 kHz frequencies gets 10,000 times louder (40 dB), while the 100 Hz frequency is only 100 times louder (20 dB).
In the end, it's basically going to sound very similar to noise. A single sine wave gets a phase shift and amplification - an entire song would turn to crap. Think of a sawtooth wave instead of a sine wave - differentiate that, and you end up with a square wave, you are getting more and more high frequency noise in there. |
|
|
| jdjd |
if you guys really want to understand all of what you were discussing before, get Michael Spivak's Calculus, it's the deepest and most difficult book written in English on calc..
| quote: | Originally posted by Jer
Does anyone else think that trance music (and electronic music in general) has a prticular appeal for the mathematically inclined? The effects and settings of sythesizers are in effect functions to the variable of the source waveform. Even the logic of the division of the beat into finer and finer halves (1/2s, 1/4s, 1/8ths etc.) reminds me of binary. Obviously there's more to any music than just math, but it's obviously possible to define any music in terms of pure math (or else it couldn't be reproduced by a computer!) |
i agree with this, also the sounds that are generated are 'perfect' sounds, if you look at the sound of a guitar or someone's voice under that something-ascope, its random peaks and valleys, but your typical trance synth is perfectly shaped... |
|
|
| DJ Nuclear |
| quote: | Originally posted by jdjd
if you guys really want to understand all of what you were discussing before, get Michael Spivak's Calculus, it's the deepest and most difficult book written in English on calc..
i agree with this, also the sounds that are generated are 'perfect' sounds, if you look at the sound of a guitar or someone's voice under that something-ascope, its random peaks and valleys, but your typical trance synth is perfectly shaped... |
It's not quite random, just extremely complex. All instruments, voices, etc are made up of thousands of different waveforms all interacting with eachother. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jer
Whoa! Dude! You did algebra in grade 3??? We didn't start that stuff in Canada til, like, grade 9!!! No wonder you understand this stuff!! |
Well, it's more like 5th grade material, for everyone except the US and Canada, that is.
Anyway, I now recall that there was something being mentioned about functions like f(x)+x=x in numerical algebra that I've had at my uni, and that there was something not really trivial about them, but I can't recall what was the deal anymore... |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, it's more like 5th grade material, for everyone except the US and Canada, that is.
Anyway, I now recall that there was something being mentioned about functions like f(x)+x=x in numerical algebra that I've had at my uni, and that there was something not really trivial about them, but I can't recall what was the deal anymore... |
f(x) is the same thing as 'y'. Thus, f(x)+x=x is the same as y+x=x, as we've been saying so far :P |
|
|
| jdjd |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, it's more like 5th grade material, for everyone except the US and Canada, that is.
Anyway, I now recall that there was something being mentioned about functions like f(x)+x=x in numerical algebra that I've had at my uni, and that there was something not really trivial about them, but I can't recall what was the deal anymore... |
it is completely trivial!
it is simply a zero function |
|
|
| cbxzcm |
 |
|
|
| Nadi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jer
Does anyone else think that trance music (and electronic music in general) has a prticular appeal for the mathematically inclined? The effects and settings of sythesizers are in effect functions to the variable of the source waveform. Even the logic of the division of the beat into finer and finer halves (1/2s, 1/4s, 1/8ths etc.) reminds me of binary. Obviously there's more to any music than just math, but it's obviously possible to define any music in terms of pure math (or else it couldn't be reproduced by a computer!) |
No. I hate math. |
|
|
| whiskers |
| i own you all, i will derive and antidifferentiate songs and i will sell them on napster to stupid people and i'll become rich MUHAHAHAHAHA |
|
|
| dj_moonshine |
| quote: | Originally posted by placebo
x + y = x
solve for x
anyone?? |
x= y-x
:conf: :conf: :conf: :conf:
sorry man, i forgot everything about algebra. lol. but i hope u find the answer soon, good luck.;) |
|
|
| Nadi |
| x is undefined and any non imaginary number. |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_moonshine
x= y-x
:conf: :conf: :conf: :conf:
sorry man, i forgot everything about algebra. lol. but i hope u find the answer soon, good luck.;) |
rofl, this kid is funny, the thread is 4 pages long, we solved the problem on the first page and went on to talk about calculus and limits, and here he is, posting that he can't help and that he hopes the answer can be found... funny man! :haha: |
|
|
|
|
