Hai, we use y=mx+c in Australia

Zhylliolom wrote:

I've never heard of any of the equations in this thread. In my studies I have always used

where ζ is Riemann's zeta function, Γ(x) is the gamma function, ∇ is the del operator, L^-1 denotes the inverse Laplace transform, T_n is the nth Chebyshev polynomial of the first kind, C is a simple closed curve bounding a region having z = a as an interior point, σ₀^m is a simplex of an oriented simplicial complex and [σ^m, σ^{m - 1}] is an incidence number, S is a compact, orientable, differentiable k-dimensional manifold with boundary in Eⁿ and ω is a (k - 1)-form in Eⁿ, defined, and C¹ at all points of S, and η(x) is Dirichlet's eta function.

(Sorry for stealing your joke, Ricky. )

...is that actually a straight line equation or is it a whole bunch of mathematical mumbo-jumbo?

Now I'm even more confused

Thanks "FFF...", I will add that.

Are you sure, sitting? "m" is normally the gradient ... !

lukeqwerty,
this equation is used to find the equation of a given straight line when two points on the cartesian plane are given, namely x1 and y1.

India too uses y = mx + c.
(we have the same origin, don't we? Gondwanaland )

I'd just like to point out that in post #5, where Ricky divides by product of a and b, his transform does not work if either a or b is zero.  Therefore, his super-complex formula does not work for either y = ax (because b=0) or y = b (cos a=0).

Just me being picky.

JaneFairfax wrote:

Actually yes they can!

y=∞x+c LOL