I think what Bubba was referring was to Happy_Reaper's reply. Fixed points, not intersections.
It is obvious that both functions intersect at the fixed point since both functions cancel each other.Originally Posted by Bubba
I think what Bubba was referring was to Happy_Reaper's reply. Fixed points, not intersections.
It is obvious that both functions intersect at the fixed point since both functions cancel each other.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
I wish you people would stop being so stuck-up and switch to metric.
M.Eng Computer Engineering CandidateB.Sc Computer Science
Robotics and graphics enthusiast.
>> I wish you people would stop being so stuck-up and switch to metric.
Heh. I agree .... what was that quote ...
Grandpa Simpson: The Metric System is the tool of the devil! My car gets five rods to the hog's head and that's the way I likes it!
BTW, there are worse things than pounds per square inch in mech eng!!
This always happens whenever you have a linear relationship of the form f(x) = mx + b, where m != 1. You'll find that f(x) = x when x = b/(1-m).
What you have are two linear functions that are inverses of each other (by design, since converting from Fahrenheit to Celcius to Fahrenheit should give you the same temperature), and since one has a fixed point, the inverse must have the same fixed point.
You'll find the same thing with, say, g(x) = 2x + 3 and h(x) = (1/2)(x-3).
Every non-constant linear function has an inverse function, and they'll always have the same effect.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who cringed when reading the beginning of this sentence and those who salivated to how superior they are for understanding something as simple as binary.
