Function Composition: Graphing f(g(x)) Without Equations

AI Thread Summary
To graph f(g(x)) from the given graphs of f(x) and g(x), one must first identify the output of g(x) for specific x-values. This output serves as the input for the function f. By looking up the corresponding values on the graphs, one can determine the points for the new graph of f(g(x)). If the original functions are simple, it may be possible to derive their equations and plot the composition directly. This method emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between the two functions without needing explicit equations.
SD-Ness
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello, I've been an intermittent poster here for about five years. I've come back for another shot at PF. So for a first thread:

Class is a currently a review of old topics. One of them is 'function composition.' I was doing an assignment today and came upon a question that required one to graph f(g(x)) from two graphs given f(x) and g(x). There were no equations supplied. How might one go about graphing f(g(x))? I am not sure of the relationship here, unfortunately.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SD-Ness said:
Class is a currently a review of old topics. One of them is 'function composition.' I was doing an assignment today and came upon a question that required one to graph f(g(x)) from two graphs given f(x) and g(x). There were no equations supplied. How might one go about graphing f(g(x))? I am not sure of the relationship here, unfortunately.

It sounds like you have two graphs, and have to generate a third one, f(g(x)) from the graphs of f(x) and g(x)?

Well, right now, you have y=g(x) and y=f(x). But you want a graph which is y=f(g(x)). Is this enough to get you started? This sounds like a pain, BTW.

Dot
 
Dorothy Weglend said:
It sounds like you have two graphs, and have to generate a third one, f(g(x)) from the graphs of f(x) and g(x)?

Well, right now, you have y=g(x) and y=f(x). But you want a graph which is y=f(g(x)). Is this enough to get you started? This sounds like a pain, BTW.

Dot
Yes, this is correct. I have two graphs - f(x) and g(x) - and I need to generate the third, f(g(x)).

I know that y=g(x) and y=f(x), but I'm not sure how to generate y=f(g(x)) from that.
 
let x=g(x), to sub into the equation y = f(x)? don't know if its an help. its a strange question.
 
Last edited:
SD-Ness said:
Yes, this is correct. I have two graphs - f(x) and g(x) - and I need to generate the third, f(g(x)).

I know that y=g(x) and y=f(x), but I'm not sure how to generate y=f(g(x)) from that.

The only difference is that you have to look up the values on the graphs, instead of compute them. A = g(x), y = f(A), this is how you would compute a function composition, right? These X's and Y's would be the coord's of the point on the new graph. The intermediate value of A is just used to look up the proper value of the function composition.

I'm assuming here that the graphs are complicated, and it's not possible to recover the functions that generated them. If they are simple, like a straight line or a parabola, then you could recover the functions (or make a good guess) and generate a formula to plot the new graph directly.

Dot

Dot
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top