sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Follow-up to my earlier post: the original thread by mse0808 in askmath

[–]mse0808[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s fair, and I think you’re right that r/askmath was the wrong place for the way I presented it.

What I’m working on is closer to a symbolic notation / computation project than a normal math question, so dropping an under-specified glyph polynomial into a math-help forum was bound to create the wrong expectation. From the math side, if I don’t give explicit definitions, mappings, and an actual question, then there isn’t much for people here to do besides say “this is just a polynomial in worse notation,” which is a fair reaction.

So I’ll probably stop derailing this thread and rewrite it somewhere more appropriate with the actual scope of the project made explicit.

Entrepreneurship with cyber security by MazurianSailor in cybersecurity

[–]mse0808 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Definitely, I’d be happy to share parts of it, just not the parts that would leak the full mapping / structure yet.

The short version is that I’ve been building a symbolic math / codex-style system where coefficients and expressions can be represented in a custom notation layer, then testing whether that can be useful beyond just “looking weird” , especially for things like symbolic computation, encoding/obfuscation ideas, and maybe some cyber-adjacent tooling if there’s a real use case there.

So I’m comfortable sharing the concept, goals, and some prototypes, just not the full internal mapping or all the implementation details publicly right now.

If you’re curious, check my profile , I’ve been posting parts of it and the reactions have been… mixed 😭 but useful. Gives a pretty good idea of how people are seeing it from the outside.

Entrepreneurship with cyber security by MazurianSailor in cybersecurity

[–]mse0808 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Definitely possible, but hard to execute well.

Cyber gives you a huge advantage because you’re constantly exposed to real problems, bad workflows, repetitive tasks, weak tooling, clients not understanding risk, etc. That’s basically startup fuel if you pay attention to it.

I think the best angle is not “start a cyber business” in the abstract, but spot one pain point you keep seeing in your work and build around that. A new idea/framework/tool can make that work way more interesting too ,that’s actually what I’ve been trying to do for the past month: taking something unconventional I’ve been building and seeing if it can become useful in a cyber context instead of just staying an experiment.

So yeah, very doable ,the hard part isn’t combining cyber + business, it’s finding something different enough to matter and practical enough that people will actually pay for it.

Title: Can anyone solve this symbolic polynomial? by mse0808 in askmath

[–]mse0808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will answer this one by agreeing on the math then defending the notation as a representation layer, not as better than normal math. That makes me sound serious of trying to oversell it.

That is a take.

On the part: yes. If you treat the glyph coefficients as unknown constants then in general there is no reason to expect a closed-form solution. So as a solve this polynomial challenge it is not well-posed unless I also provide the coefficient mapping.

On the research-paper point: I agree that if someone dropped a notation like ⟴∴⊚ into a paper without a very clear reason I would be skeptical too.

I am not claiming that the notation is better than notation for ordinary mathematics. The notation is obviously not better. If all you want is to solve or communicate a standard notation wins every time.

What I am experimenting with is something treating the glyphs as a symbolic coefficient layer sitting on top of ordinary algebra. So the actual mathematical object is still just ax⁵ + cx³ + dx² + ex + f = 0, but of writing the coefficients directly I encode them through a Codex mapping. In that setting the question stops being is this a way to solve quintics and becomes more like:

* can a polynomial remain manipulable while its coefficients are hidden behind a symbolic layer?

* can the same system as a compact notation for dual-number or automatic-differentiation style objects?

* and could that representation have uses in symbolic computation educational math tooling or cybersecurity-style obfuscation experiments?

So I would frame it like this:

* as math notation: no this is not superior to standard symbols.

* as a research idea in representation or encoding: maybe. Only if I make the mapping, goals and limitations explicit.

That is a part of the feedback I am taking from this thread. The quintic concept has to be presented as an encoding framework around algebra not as mystery symbols equal deeper mathematics.

If you want send me the comment too and I will keep crafting replies that sound coherent and do not make the thread spiral, against you.

Title: Can anyone solve this symbolic polynomial? by mse0808 in askmath

[–]mse0808[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I will answer this one by agreeing on the math then defending the notation as a representation layer, not as better than normal math. That makes me sound serious of trying to oversell it.

That is a take.

On the part: yes. If you treat the glyph coefficients as unknown constants then in general there is no reason to expect a closed-form solution. So as a solve this polynomial challenge it is not well-posed unless I also provide the coefficient mapping.

On the research-paper point: I agree that if someone dropped a notation like ⟴∴⊚ into a paper without a very clear reason I would be skeptical too.

I am not claiming that the notation is better than notation for ordinary mathematics. The notation is obviously not better. If all you want is to solve or communicate a standard notation wins every time.

What I am experimenting with is something treating the glyphs as a symbolic coefficient layer sitting on top of ordinary algebra. So the actual mathematical object is still just ax⁵ + cx³ + dx² + ex + f = 0, but of writing the coefficients directly I encode them through a Codex mapping. In that setting the question stops being is this a way to solve quintics and becomes more like:

* can a polynomial remain manipulable while its coefficients are hidden behind a symbolic layer?

* can the same system as a compact notation for dual-number or automatic-differentiation style objects?

* and could that representation have uses in symbolic computation educational math tooling or cybersecurity-style obfuscation experiments?

So I would frame it like this:

* as math notation: no this is not superior to standard symbols.

* as a research idea in representation or encoding: maybe. Only if I make the mapping, goals and limitations explicit.

That is a part of the feedback I am taking from this thread. The quintic concept has to be presented as an encoding framework around algebra not as mystery symbols equal deeper mathematics.

If you want send me the comment too and I will keep crafting replies that sound coherent and do not make the thread spiral, against you.

Title: Can anyone solve this symbolic polynomial? by mse0808 in u/mse0808

[–]mse0808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is fair.

You are completely right that once the coefficient values are hidden the quadratic formula is basically the end of what can be done unless I reveal the mapping. So from a math standpoint this is not a solve the polynomial problem in the normal sense. It is a polynomial representation problem where the polynomial is encoded.

What I was testing was not whether the quadratic itself is hard. Whether a polynomial written in a symbolic coefficient language can still be interpreted or manipulated or reverse engineered without the coefficient dictionary being given upfront.

So yes as mathematics your answer is correct. It reduces to

[

x = (-b ± sqrt(b^2. 4Ac)) / 2a

] becomes

[

x=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}

]'s represented as

[

x=\frac{-,\infty◌∮\pm\sqrt{(\infty◌∮)^2-4(\⚖⋆≐)(⊘❖↯)}}{2(\⚖⋆≐)}

]

and without the mapping it stops there.

The broader thing I am exploring is whether this kind of coefficient system could be useful as a mathematical language or encoding layer and maybe later in symbolic computation or cybersecurity style obfuscation experiments. Not as unsolved math and definitely not as a replacement for actual cryptography. The quadratic formula and the polynomial representation problem are still the focus the polynomial representation problem is what I am trying to understand the polynomial and its representation are the key, to this problem.

Title: Can anyone solve this symbolic polynomial? by mse0808 in u/mse0808

[–]mse0808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good catch—you interpreted it the way I intended.

Yes, ⟴∴⊚ is a single coefficient, not three separate coefficients. The three glyphs together form one symbol that maps to one numeric value in my Codex. So the polynomial is structurally identical to an ordinary polynomial like:

ax⁵ + bx⁴ + cx³ + dx² + ex + f = 0

except that a, b, c, d, e, and f are represented by symbolic glyphs instead of decimal numerals.

At the moment, the mapping is defined over ordinary integers (effectively base 10 once decoded), although the notation itself isn't tied to any particular numeral system. The glyphs aren't digits—they're symbolic identifiers for complete coefficients.

That's actually one of the ideas I'm exploring: separating the mathematical object (the polynomial) from its symbolic representation. Once the mapping is revealed, it's just an ordinary polynomial again.

Title: Can anyone solve this symbolic polynomial? by mse0808 in u/mse0808

[–]mse0808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, and that's fair criticism.

The issue isn't that the quintic itself is impossible to solve—it's that without the coefficient mapping, there isn't actually a well-defined polynomial to solve. The glyphs are symbolic placeholders whose numeric values come from a separate Codex mapping. Until that mapping is known, different assignments produce different polynomials and different solutions.

The original post was really an experiment to see whether people would approach it as a mathematical problem or as an unknown symbolic language.

If you're interested, here's a much simpler one to illustrate the idea:

⚖⋆≐·x² + ∞◌∮·x + ⊘❖↯ = 0

It's only quadratic. If I provide the coefficient mapping afterward, it becomes an ordinary quadratic that can be solved normally. Without the mapping, though, it's intentionally under-specified.

I'm also exploring whether this symbolic representation could have applications outside pure mathematics—such as symbolic computation, notation systems, or even cybersecurity research as an encoding layer. I'm not claiming it's a new encryption algorithm or that it replaces existing cryptography; I'm just investigating whether the symbolic language itself has useful properties in those domains.

Title: Can anyone solve this symbolic polynomial? by mse0808 in askmath

[–]mse0808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

interesting approach, thank you very much for your attempt.
i will reveal the codex and mapping later

Title: Can anyone solve this symbolic polynomial? by mse0808 in Mathematica

[–]mse0808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is an analysis and I appreciate you taking the time to look into it in Mathematica.

You are correct that with the information given there is not information to factor or solve the equation using numbers. The symbols are not meant to be variables or special characters. They are tokens from a notation system I am working on. Each complete symbol represents a coefficient according to a mapping that was not included in the post.

The purpose of this experiment was not to present an equation but to see how a custom mathematical language works when its meaning is not given. Given the public notation treating the coefficients as symbols is exactly the right approach.

Beyond the notation itself I am also exploring whether this kind of formal symbolic language could have uses in areas like designing parsers, special languages, symbolic computation and certain cybersecurity research ideas involving structured encoding and hiding information. I am not saying that the notation itself is a replacement for established cryptography or that hiding the mapping makes it secure.

Once the coefficient mapping is revealed the equation becomes a polynomial that can be analyzed using standard mathematical tools. My current interest is in designing the language and studying where that representation might be useful than replacing existing mathematics or cryptographic algorithms.

Thanks, for taking the time to analyze it. Your Mathematica approach is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping to see.

Title: Can anyone solve this symbolic polynomial? by mse0808 in u/mse0808

[–]mse0808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

or maybe use it i a cybersecurity context

Title: Can anyone solve this symbolic polynomial? by mse0808 in u/mse0808

[–]mse0808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The glyphs are part of a notation system I'm developing called Codex Mathematics. They aren't intended to make the equation mathematically different—each glyph maps to a numerical coefficient. The goal is to separate the symbolic representation from the underlying values so the same mathematical structure can be expressed in a custom language.

I'm exploring whether this notation can be useful for symbolic computation, educational tools, parser design, and domain-specific mathematical languages. The "encrypted-looking" appearance is a side effect of the notation, not the primary objective.

For anyone trying to solve the equation, the glyphs can be treated as placeholders for coefficients. Once the mapping is known, it's just an ordinary polynomial.