creating smooth curves with $f(0) = 0$ and $f(1) = 1$
I would like to create smooth curves, which have $f(0) = 0$ and $f(1) = 1$.
What I would like to create are curves similar to the gamma curves known from CRT monitors. I don't know any better way to describe it, in computer graphics I used them a lot, but in math I don't know what kind of curves they are. They are defined by the two endpoints and a 3rd point.
What I am looking for is a similar curve, what can be described easily in math. For example with a simple exponential function or power function. Can you tell me what kind of curves these ones are (just by lookin at the image below), and how can I create a function which fits a curve using the 2 endpoints and a value in the middle?
So what I am looking for is some equation or algorithm what takes a midpoint value $f(0.5) = x$, returns me $a, b$ and $c$ for example if the curve can be parameterized like this (just ideas):
$a exp (bt) + c$ or $a b^t + c$
Update: yes, $x^t$ works like this, but it gets really sharp when $t < 0.1$. I would prefer something with a smooth derivative at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind. (I use smooth here as "not steep")
calculus geometry interpolation
add a comment |
I would like to create smooth curves, which have $f(0) = 0$ and $f(1) = 1$.
What I would like to create are curves similar to the gamma curves known from CRT monitors. I don't know any better way to describe it, in computer graphics I used them a lot, but in math I don't know what kind of curves they are. They are defined by the two endpoints and a 3rd point.
What I am looking for is a similar curve, what can be described easily in math. For example with a simple exponential function or power function. Can you tell me what kind of curves these ones are (just by lookin at the image below), and how can I create a function which fits a curve using the 2 endpoints and a value in the middle?
So what I am looking for is some equation or algorithm what takes a midpoint value $f(0.5) = x$, returns me $a, b$ and $c$ for example if the curve can be parameterized like this (just ideas):
$a exp (bt) + c$ or $a b^t + c$
Update: yes, $x^t$ works like this, but it gets really sharp when $t < 0.1$. I would prefer something with a smooth derivative at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind. (I use smooth here as "not steep")
calculus geometry interpolation
1
How about $f(x)=x^t$ where $t$ is a positive real constant? This has $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$, and if $f(0.5)=k$ where $0<k<1$ then I guess $0.5^t=k$, so $t=-log_2 k$.
– mac
Jul 7 '11 at 9:36
Great minds think alike, we even agree on notation. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 9:39
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
FYI a "smooth function" actually has a technical meaning: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_function
– Michael McGowan
Jul 7 '11 at 13:40
add a comment |
I would like to create smooth curves, which have $f(0) = 0$ and $f(1) = 1$.
What I would like to create are curves similar to the gamma curves known from CRT monitors. I don't know any better way to describe it, in computer graphics I used them a lot, but in math I don't know what kind of curves they are. They are defined by the two endpoints and a 3rd point.
What I am looking for is a similar curve, what can be described easily in math. For example with a simple exponential function or power function. Can you tell me what kind of curves these ones are (just by lookin at the image below), and how can I create a function which fits a curve using the 2 endpoints and a value in the middle?
So what I am looking for is some equation or algorithm what takes a midpoint value $f(0.5) = x$, returns me $a, b$ and $c$ for example if the curve can be parameterized like this (just ideas):
$a exp (bt) + c$ or $a b^t + c$
Update: yes, $x^t$ works like this, but it gets really sharp when $t < 0.1$. I would prefer something with a smooth derivative at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind. (I use smooth here as "not steep")
calculus geometry interpolation
I would like to create smooth curves, which have $f(0) = 0$ and $f(1) = 1$.
What I would like to create are curves similar to the gamma curves known from CRT monitors. I don't know any better way to describe it, in computer graphics I used them a lot, but in math I don't know what kind of curves they are. They are defined by the two endpoints and a 3rd point.
What I am looking for is a similar curve, what can be described easily in math. For example with a simple exponential function or power function. Can you tell me what kind of curves these ones are (just by lookin at the image below), and how can I create a function which fits a curve using the 2 endpoints and a value in the middle?
So what I am looking for is some equation or algorithm what takes a midpoint value $f(0.5) = x$, returns me $a, b$ and $c$ for example if the curve can be parameterized like this (just ideas):
$a exp (bt) + c$ or $a b^t + c$
Update: yes, $x^t$ works like this, but it gets really sharp when $t < 0.1$. I would prefer something with a smooth derivative at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind. (I use smooth here as "not steep")
calculus geometry interpolation
calculus geometry interpolation
edited Dec 26 at 10:06
Lorenzo B.
1,8222520
1,8222520
asked Jul 7 '11 at 9:25
hyperknot
4301411
4301411
1
How about $f(x)=x^t$ where $t$ is a positive real constant? This has $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$, and if $f(0.5)=k$ where $0<k<1$ then I guess $0.5^t=k$, so $t=-log_2 k$.
– mac
Jul 7 '11 at 9:36
Great minds think alike, we even agree on notation. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 9:39
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
FYI a "smooth function" actually has a technical meaning: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_function
– Michael McGowan
Jul 7 '11 at 13:40
add a comment |
1
How about $f(x)=x^t$ where $t$ is a positive real constant? This has $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$, and if $f(0.5)=k$ where $0<k<1$ then I guess $0.5^t=k$, so $t=-log_2 k$.
– mac
Jul 7 '11 at 9:36
Great minds think alike, we even agree on notation. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 9:39
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
FYI a "smooth function" actually has a technical meaning: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_function
– Michael McGowan
Jul 7 '11 at 13:40
1
1
How about $f(x)=x^t$ where $t$ is a positive real constant? This has $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$, and if $f(0.5)=k$ where $0<k<1$ then I guess $0.5^t=k$, so $t=-log_2 k$.
– mac
Jul 7 '11 at 9:36
How about $f(x)=x^t$ where $t$ is a positive real constant? This has $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$, and if $f(0.5)=k$ where $0<k<1$ then I guess $0.5^t=k$, so $t=-log_2 k$.
– mac
Jul 7 '11 at 9:36
Great minds think alike, we even agree on notation. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 9:39
Great minds think alike, we even agree on notation. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 9:39
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
FYI a "smooth function" actually has a technical meaning: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_function
– Michael McGowan
Jul 7 '11 at 13:40
FYI a "smooth function" actually has a technical meaning: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_function
– Michael McGowan
Jul 7 '11 at 13:40
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
EDIT
It turns out that for $0 < x < 1$ with $x neq 0.5$, the function $f(t)$ as given in the original answer below can be simplified very much. (The key observation is that $sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} = sqrt {(2x - 1)^2 } = |2x - 1|$.) Specifically, for any $0 < x < 1$ with $x neq 0.5$,
$$
f(t) = frac{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^{2t} - 1}}{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^2 - 1}}.
$$
Note that $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$, and
$$
f(0.5) = frac{{frac{{1 - x}}{x} - 1}}{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^2 - 1}} = frac{{frac{{1 - 2x}}{x}}}{{frac{{1 - 2x}}{{x^2 }}}} = x.
$$
Since $f$ is, loosely speaking, an exponential function on a bounded domain, it has a bounded derivative, as the OP wants.
Original answer
If $x=0.5$, then take $f(t)=t$. If $0 < x < 1$ and $x neq 0.5$, take
$$
f(t) = frac{{e^{bt} - 1}}{{e^b - 1}},
$$
where
$$
b = 2 ln (xi)
$$
with
$$
xi = frac{{1 + sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} }}{{2x}}
$$
if $x < 0.5$ and
$$
xi = frac{{1 - sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} }}{{2x}}
$$
if $x > 0.5$.
Then $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$, and $f(0.5)=x$ (and $f$ has a bounded derivative, as you want).
Perfect! Thank you! It gives me exactly the kind of functions I was thinking!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:01
Thx! Even better!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 13:50
add a comment |
How about $f(x)=x^t$ for some $t>0$? It satisfies $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$ for any $t$.
All that is left is to pick $t$. For example, if you want that $f(b)=a$, then we get $b^t=a$, or $t = log(a)/log(b)$.
Edit: In particular, if we denote $f_t(x)=x^t$, we have that $f_{2.2}(0.5)=0.218$ and $f_{1/2.2}(0.218)=0.5$. In other words, it is clear from the numbers and the general shapes of the curves that they are exactly $f(x)=x^t$.
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
It seems to me that the dashed line in the picture also has this problem. I'm willing to bet that the graphs in the picture were actually $x^t$. I might be wrong but I like my odds. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:02
1
Also, note that $0.5^{2.2}=0.218$, so the numbers in the picture support this hypothesis.
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:04
OK, you are right with the particular numbers, but I was just using this graphic to describe the problem I was into. If you plot a function from Shai Covo's answer you can see its shape is really different as x gets closer to 0 or 1.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:04
Fair enough. Hard for me to know exactly what you were looking for, I was just trying to create "curves similar to the gamma curves known from CRT monitors" (as given by the picture).
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 12:07
add a comment |
It might be worth doing some research into Finite Element shape functions as the basis of these functions is very similar to the problem you are trying to solve here.
My experience with shape functions is that the equations are usually identified through trial and error although there are approaches that can ease you through the process.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50060%2fcreating-smooth-curves-with-f0-0-and-f1-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
EDIT
It turns out that for $0 < x < 1$ with $x neq 0.5$, the function $f(t)$ as given in the original answer below can be simplified very much. (The key observation is that $sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} = sqrt {(2x - 1)^2 } = |2x - 1|$.) Specifically, for any $0 < x < 1$ with $x neq 0.5$,
$$
f(t) = frac{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^{2t} - 1}}{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^2 - 1}}.
$$
Note that $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$, and
$$
f(0.5) = frac{{frac{{1 - x}}{x} - 1}}{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^2 - 1}} = frac{{frac{{1 - 2x}}{x}}}{{frac{{1 - 2x}}{{x^2 }}}} = x.
$$
Since $f$ is, loosely speaking, an exponential function on a bounded domain, it has a bounded derivative, as the OP wants.
Original answer
If $x=0.5$, then take $f(t)=t$. If $0 < x < 1$ and $x neq 0.5$, take
$$
f(t) = frac{{e^{bt} - 1}}{{e^b - 1}},
$$
where
$$
b = 2 ln (xi)
$$
with
$$
xi = frac{{1 + sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} }}{{2x}}
$$
if $x < 0.5$ and
$$
xi = frac{{1 - sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} }}{{2x}}
$$
if $x > 0.5$.
Then $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$, and $f(0.5)=x$ (and $f$ has a bounded derivative, as you want).
Perfect! Thank you! It gives me exactly the kind of functions I was thinking!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:01
Thx! Even better!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 13:50
add a comment |
EDIT
It turns out that for $0 < x < 1$ with $x neq 0.5$, the function $f(t)$ as given in the original answer below can be simplified very much. (The key observation is that $sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} = sqrt {(2x - 1)^2 } = |2x - 1|$.) Specifically, for any $0 < x < 1$ with $x neq 0.5$,
$$
f(t) = frac{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^{2t} - 1}}{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^2 - 1}}.
$$
Note that $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$, and
$$
f(0.5) = frac{{frac{{1 - x}}{x} - 1}}{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^2 - 1}} = frac{{frac{{1 - 2x}}{x}}}{{frac{{1 - 2x}}{{x^2 }}}} = x.
$$
Since $f$ is, loosely speaking, an exponential function on a bounded domain, it has a bounded derivative, as the OP wants.
Original answer
If $x=0.5$, then take $f(t)=t$. If $0 < x < 1$ and $x neq 0.5$, take
$$
f(t) = frac{{e^{bt} - 1}}{{e^b - 1}},
$$
where
$$
b = 2 ln (xi)
$$
with
$$
xi = frac{{1 + sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} }}{{2x}}
$$
if $x < 0.5$ and
$$
xi = frac{{1 - sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} }}{{2x}}
$$
if $x > 0.5$.
Then $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$, and $f(0.5)=x$ (and $f$ has a bounded derivative, as you want).
Perfect! Thank you! It gives me exactly the kind of functions I was thinking!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:01
Thx! Even better!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 13:50
add a comment |
EDIT
It turns out that for $0 < x < 1$ with $x neq 0.5$, the function $f(t)$ as given in the original answer below can be simplified very much. (The key observation is that $sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} = sqrt {(2x - 1)^2 } = |2x - 1|$.) Specifically, for any $0 < x < 1$ with $x neq 0.5$,
$$
f(t) = frac{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^{2t} - 1}}{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^2 - 1}}.
$$
Note that $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$, and
$$
f(0.5) = frac{{frac{{1 - x}}{x} - 1}}{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^2 - 1}} = frac{{frac{{1 - 2x}}{x}}}{{frac{{1 - 2x}}{{x^2 }}}} = x.
$$
Since $f$ is, loosely speaking, an exponential function on a bounded domain, it has a bounded derivative, as the OP wants.
Original answer
If $x=0.5$, then take $f(t)=t$. If $0 < x < 1$ and $x neq 0.5$, take
$$
f(t) = frac{{e^{bt} - 1}}{{e^b - 1}},
$$
where
$$
b = 2 ln (xi)
$$
with
$$
xi = frac{{1 + sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} }}{{2x}}
$$
if $x < 0.5$ and
$$
xi = frac{{1 - sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} }}{{2x}}
$$
if $x > 0.5$.
Then $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$, and $f(0.5)=x$ (and $f$ has a bounded derivative, as you want).
EDIT
It turns out that for $0 < x < 1$ with $x neq 0.5$, the function $f(t)$ as given in the original answer below can be simplified very much. (The key observation is that $sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} = sqrt {(2x - 1)^2 } = |2x - 1|$.) Specifically, for any $0 < x < 1$ with $x neq 0.5$,
$$
f(t) = frac{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^{2t} - 1}}{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^2 - 1}}.
$$
Note that $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$, and
$$
f(0.5) = frac{{frac{{1 - x}}{x} - 1}}{{(frac{{1 - x}}{x})^2 - 1}} = frac{{frac{{1 - 2x}}{x}}}{{frac{{1 - 2x}}{{x^2 }}}} = x.
$$
Since $f$ is, loosely speaking, an exponential function on a bounded domain, it has a bounded derivative, as the OP wants.
Original answer
If $x=0.5$, then take $f(t)=t$. If $0 < x < 1$ and $x neq 0.5$, take
$$
f(t) = frac{{e^{bt} - 1}}{{e^b - 1}},
$$
where
$$
b = 2 ln (xi)
$$
with
$$
xi = frac{{1 + sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} }}{{2x}}
$$
if $x < 0.5$ and
$$
xi = frac{{1 - sqrt {1 - 4x(1 - x)} }}{{2x}}
$$
if $x > 0.5$.
Then $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$, and $f(0.5)=x$ (and $f$ has a bounded derivative, as you want).
edited Jul 7 '11 at 13:34
answered Jul 7 '11 at 10:39
Shai Covo
21.2k23053
21.2k23053
Perfect! Thank you! It gives me exactly the kind of functions I was thinking!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:01
Thx! Even better!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 13:50
add a comment |
Perfect! Thank you! It gives me exactly the kind of functions I was thinking!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:01
Thx! Even better!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 13:50
Perfect! Thank you! It gives me exactly the kind of functions I was thinking!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:01
Perfect! Thank you! It gives me exactly the kind of functions I was thinking!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:01
Thx! Even better!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 13:50
Thx! Even better!
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 13:50
add a comment |
How about $f(x)=x^t$ for some $t>0$? It satisfies $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$ for any $t$.
All that is left is to pick $t$. For example, if you want that $f(b)=a$, then we get $b^t=a$, or $t = log(a)/log(b)$.
Edit: In particular, if we denote $f_t(x)=x^t$, we have that $f_{2.2}(0.5)=0.218$ and $f_{1/2.2}(0.218)=0.5$. In other words, it is clear from the numbers and the general shapes of the curves that they are exactly $f(x)=x^t$.
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
It seems to me that the dashed line in the picture also has this problem. I'm willing to bet that the graphs in the picture were actually $x^t$. I might be wrong but I like my odds. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:02
1
Also, note that $0.5^{2.2}=0.218$, so the numbers in the picture support this hypothesis.
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:04
OK, you are right with the particular numbers, but I was just using this graphic to describe the problem I was into. If you plot a function from Shai Covo's answer you can see its shape is really different as x gets closer to 0 or 1.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:04
Fair enough. Hard for me to know exactly what you were looking for, I was just trying to create "curves similar to the gamma curves known from CRT monitors" (as given by the picture).
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 12:07
add a comment |
How about $f(x)=x^t$ for some $t>0$? It satisfies $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$ for any $t$.
All that is left is to pick $t$. For example, if you want that $f(b)=a$, then we get $b^t=a$, or $t = log(a)/log(b)$.
Edit: In particular, if we denote $f_t(x)=x^t$, we have that $f_{2.2}(0.5)=0.218$ and $f_{1/2.2}(0.218)=0.5$. In other words, it is clear from the numbers and the general shapes of the curves that they are exactly $f(x)=x^t$.
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
It seems to me that the dashed line in the picture also has this problem. I'm willing to bet that the graphs in the picture were actually $x^t$. I might be wrong but I like my odds. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:02
1
Also, note that $0.5^{2.2}=0.218$, so the numbers in the picture support this hypothesis.
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:04
OK, you are right with the particular numbers, but I was just using this graphic to describe the problem I was into. If you plot a function from Shai Covo's answer you can see its shape is really different as x gets closer to 0 or 1.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:04
Fair enough. Hard for me to know exactly what you were looking for, I was just trying to create "curves similar to the gamma curves known from CRT monitors" (as given by the picture).
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 12:07
add a comment |
How about $f(x)=x^t$ for some $t>0$? It satisfies $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$ for any $t$.
All that is left is to pick $t$. For example, if you want that $f(b)=a$, then we get $b^t=a$, or $t = log(a)/log(b)$.
Edit: In particular, if we denote $f_t(x)=x^t$, we have that $f_{2.2}(0.5)=0.218$ and $f_{1/2.2}(0.218)=0.5$. In other words, it is clear from the numbers and the general shapes of the curves that they are exactly $f(x)=x^t$.
How about $f(x)=x^t$ for some $t>0$? It satisfies $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$ for any $t$.
All that is left is to pick $t$. For example, if you want that $f(b)=a$, then we get $b^t=a$, or $t = log(a)/log(b)$.
Edit: In particular, if we denote $f_t(x)=x^t$, we have that $f_{2.2}(0.5)=0.218$ and $f_{1/2.2}(0.218)=0.5$. In other words, it is clear from the numbers and the general shapes of the curves that they are exactly $f(x)=x^t$.
edited Jul 7 '11 at 11:15
answered Jul 7 '11 at 9:37
Har
31318
31318
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
It seems to me that the dashed line in the picture also has this problem. I'm willing to bet that the graphs in the picture were actually $x^t$. I might be wrong but I like my odds. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:02
1
Also, note that $0.5^{2.2}=0.218$, so the numbers in the picture support this hypothesis.
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:04
OK, you are right with the particular numbers, but I was just using this graphic to describe the problem I was into. If you plot a function from Shai Covo's answer you can see its shape is really different as x gets closer to 0 or 1.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:04
Fair enough. Hard for me to know exactly what you were looking for, I was just trying to create "curves similar to the gamma curves known from CRT monitors" (as given by the picture).
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 12:07
add a comment |
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
It seems to me that the dashed line in the picture also has this problem. I'm willing to bet that the graphs in the picture were actually $x^t$. I might be wrong but I like my odds. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:02
1
Also, note that $0.5^{2.2}=0.218$, so the numbers in the picture support this hypothesis.
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:04
OK, you are right with the particular numbers, but I was just using this graphic to describe the problem I was into. If you plot a function from Shai Covo's answer you can see its shape is really different as x gets closer to 0 or 1.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:04
Fair enough. Hard for me to know exactly what you were looking for, I was just trying to create "curves similar to the gamma curves known from CRT monitors" (as given by the picture).
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 12:07
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
It seems to me that the dashed line in the picture also has this problem. I'm willing to bet that the graphs in the picture were actually $x^t$. I might be wrong but I like my odds. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:02
It seems to me that the dashed line in the picture also has this problem. I'm willing to bet that the graphs in the picture were actually $x^t$. I might be wrong but I like my odds. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:02
1
1
Also, note that $0.5^{2.2}=0.218$, so the numbers in the picture support this hypothesis.
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:04
Also, note that $0.5^{2.2}=0.218$, so the numbers in the picture support this hypothesis.
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 10:04
OK, you are right with the particular numbers, but I was just using this graphic to describe the problem I was into. If you plot a function from Shai Covo's answer you can see its shape is really different as x gets closer to 0 or 1.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:04
OK, you are right with the particular numbers, but I was just using this graphic to describe the problem I was into. If you plot a function from Shai Covo's answer you can see its shape is really different as x gets closer to 0 or 1.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 12:04
Fair enough. Hard for me to know exactly what you were looking for, I was just trying to create "curves similar to the gamma curves known from CRT monitors" (as given by the picture).
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 12:07
Fair enough. Hard for me to know exactly what you were looking for, I was just trying to create "curves similar to the gamma curves known from CRT monitors" (as given by the picture).
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 12:07
add a comment |
It might be worth doing some research into Finite Element shape functions as the basis of these functions is very similar to the problem you are trying to solve here.
My experience with shape functions is that the equations are usually identified through trial and error although there are approaches that can ease you through the process.
add a comment |
It might be worth doing some research into Finite Element shape functions as the basis of these functions is very similar to the problem you are trying to solve here.
My experience with shape functions is that the equations are usually identified through trial and error although there are approaches that can ease you through the process.
add a comment |
It might be worth doing some research into Finite Element shape functions as the basis of these functions is very similar to the problem you are trying to solve here.
My experience with shape functions is that the equations are usually identified through trial and error although there are approaches that can ease you through the process.
It might be worth doing some research into Finite Element shape functions as the basis of these functions is very similar to the problem you are trying to solve here.
My experience with shape functions is that the equations are usually identified through trial and error although there are approaches that can ease you through the process.
answered Jul 7 '11 at 9:42
Ian Turner
932
932
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50060%2fcreating-smooth-curves-with-f0-0-and-f1-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
How about $f(x)=x^t$ where $t$ is a positive real constant? This has $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$, and if $f(0.5)=k$ where $0<k<1$ then I guess $0.5^t=k$, so $t=-log_2 k$.
– mac
Jul 7 '11 at 9:36
Great minds think alike, we even agree on notation. :)
– Har
Jul 7 '11 at 9:39
Yes, its correct, but it gets really sharp when t < 0.1. I would prefer something with a smooth derivatie at all points. Thats why I had exponential functions in mind.
– hyperknot
Jul 7 '11 at 9:45
FYI a "smooth function" actually has a technical meaning: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_function
– Michael McGowan
Jul 7 '11 at 13:40