Confused about equations with absolute values

Nat3
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
My calc book rewrites this equation:

|y|=e^c|x|

As this:

y=\pm e^cx

But that doesn't really make any sense to me. I know I should understand why we're allowed to do that, but I don't. Could someone please try to explain it to me?

I really appreciate your help, thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Is it because:

|y| = e^c|x| = |e^cx|

And there are four cases:

y = e^cx

y = -e^cx

-y = e^cx

-y = -e^cx

With the inner two and outer two being equivalent, respectively, resulting in:

y = e^cx

y = -e^cx

Which can be written as (?):

y = \pm e^cx
 
First consider the simpler equation

|y|=|x|

Suppose you know the value of x. What values of y would make the equation true?
 
Nat3, in LaTex, use { } to group. That is, use e^{cx} to get e^{cx}. e^cx gives e^cx.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top