- #1

- 658

- 5

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

Change the variable to y=x-2 and see whether the resulting function is even or odd or none!The function y=x-2 is not symmetrical about x=2, but it is symmetrical around y=x-1.

- #1

- 658

- 5

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

Gold Member

- 2,815

- 608

Change the variable to y=x-2 and see whether the resulting function is even or odd or none!

- #3

- 658

- 5

- #4

Gold Member

- 2,815

- 608

## f(-y)=a(-y+1)(-y)(-y-1)=-a(y-1)y(y+1)=-f(y) ##

So f(y) is odd which means f(x) is not symmetric around x=2 but is not that much asymmetric because we have f(2-x)=-f(x-2).

- #5

- 658

- 5

And this function is said to be symmetrical about the line x = 2. But I am unable to see how?

- #6

Gold Member

- 2,815

- 608

- #7

- 658

- 5

- #8

Gold Member

- 2,815

- 608

- #9

- 25,578

- 17,300

andyrk said:^{4}/4 -2x^{3}+ 11x^{2}/2 - 6x) + 1

And this function is said to be symmetrical about the line x = 2. But I am unable to see how?

Another way to look at it is as follows:

Imagine starting at x = 2 and moving the same distance, d, to the right and left (d > 0). So, to the right we have 2 + d and to the left we have 2 - d.

Now, if f is symmetrical about x = 2, then f(2-d) = f(2+d) for all d. You could try that approach.

- #10

- 658

- 5

How did you reduce it down to that? Can you show me? I am unable to get to that point.Shyan said:

- #11

Gold Member

- 2,815

- 608

- #12

- 658

- 5

And what is the reason that we transformed x to x+2?

- #13

Gold Member

- 2,815

- 608

- #14

- 658

- 5

- #15

- #16

- #17

- 25,578

- 17,300

This is one reason why it's much better to change the variable name - until, like Shyan, you've mastered this. Let's use z.andyrk said:

If we have z = x + 2, then x = 2 maps to z = 4, which is not what we want.

But, if we have z = x - 2, then x = 2 maps to z = 0, which is what we want. The origin of the z-variable is at x = 2.

In fact, if I'm honest, I always prefer to change the name of the variable to avoid the mistake you just made.

- #18

- 658

- 5

Wait. So you are saying that f(x) should change to a new variable so that it becomes f(z), right? But that would again mean f(x-2) and not f(x+2).. got me confusedPeroK said:This is one reason why it's much better to change the variable name - until, like Shyan, you've mastered this. Let's use z.

If we have z = x + 2, then x = 2 maps to z = 4, which is not what we want.

But, if we have z = x - 2, then x = 2 maps to z = 0, which is what we want. The origin of the z-variable is at x = 2.

In fact, if I'm honest, I always prefer to change the name of the variable to avoid the mistake you just made.

- #19

Gold Member

- 2,815

- 608

## z=x-2 \Rightarrow x=z+2 ## so ## f(x)=f(z+2) ##!(Forget the confusing ## x\rightarrow x+2 ##!)

- #20

- 658

- 5

For example, earlier x

- #21

Gold Member

- 2,815

- 608

andyrk said:_{old}) = f(x_{new}) provided that x_{new}= x_{old}- 2. So shouldn't we evaluate f(x-2) instead of f(x+2)?

For example, earlier x_{old}= 2 gave f(2) = c. Now x_{new}= 0 (i.e. x_{old}-2, where x_{old}= 2 ) would give the result c.

Let's start from the beginning.

At first we have a coordinate system which we call xy. Now I define a function y=f(x). Then I move the origin to x=a and name the new coordinate system zy. But this doesn't change the function, only the coordinate system has moved. But if I insist that the function f has the same form in terms of both x and z, then this means that the function has changed which isn't right.(Imagine y=x^2. z=x-a so x=z+a. But if I say that y=z^2, this function would have its minimum at z=0 so x=a which means the function has changed!) So I should have y=g(z). But g should be related to f somehow that we actually get the same function. So let's see what's the relationship. At x=0, f gives f(0), so at z=-a, g should give f(0). Then at x=a, f gives f(a), so at z=0, g should give f(a). Now we have two relationships g(-a)=f(0) and g(0)=f(a) and so we can deduce that g(z)=f(z+a)=f(x).

Share:

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 884

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 811

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 679

- Replies
- 24

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 869

- Replies
- 29

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 915

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K