Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't really know to be honest. I've been trying to think of how to use the floor, ceiling, or mod functions to accomplish one formula that mimics the "standard" one, and also allows for the n=1 case.
There's always the standard absolute value cheat:
x^3 - (x - 2)^3 + (x - Abs[x - 2] - 2)/2
I can easily see why there is no quadratic that works. But I suppose that's rather trivial. I'm with Chris, I don't see why a polynomial couldn't exist.
No finite polynomial will work for the same reason no quadratic will work:
Take R = P-Q. R must be 0 at every positive integer >1. The only finite polynomial with this property is 0. What Chris said, really.
(You can't "hack" a polynomial at specific parts while preserving infinitely many other values.)
Maybe, but what's the point? Our definition simply degenerates at x=1.Would it be possible to make a non-elementary function that does this? Are there other ways about it? Can you use a Fourier Series, or an infinite polynomial? Or perhaps something akin to the Gamma function?
Yes, that's clear. I was hoping to come up with an explicit equation that works for all x. Well. For all natural numbers.
Maybe, but what's the point? Our definition simply degenerates at x=1.
\( n^3-(n-2)^3-6(n\bmod{2}) \) is a much more elegant solution for n>1.Actually after doing some research, I've found that using
x^3-(x-2)^3-(3sin(pi(x-0.5))+3)
will get rid of the center pieces of the odd numbered cubes, however this doesn't fix the 1x1x1 cube issue.
Nor any even n cube.number of cubies = y(Y x Y x Y cube)^3-6. I don't know if I understood the problem correctly lol.
EDIT: Cos I'm a dumbass I realized this didn't work for a 1x1x1 cube. Nor a 2x2x2 cube. Man, I am dumb.
\( n^3-(n-2)^3-6(n\mod2) \) is a much more elegant solution for n>1.
Nor any even n cube.
I've been trying to think of how to use the floor, ceiling, or mod functions to accomplish one formula that mimics the "standard" one, and also allows for the n=1 case.
My higher math is apparently not very sound, because it is not immediately apparent to me why Q(n) does not exist.
Chris
As Lucas pointed out earlier, what we really want is to note that Q(n) = P(n) - KroneckerDelta(n,1), and then find a "prettier" function that is equivalent to the Kronecker delta at all positive integer values. Although this is doable, I'm not really sure what the point is.