Graphing Parabolas: Finding 3 Good Points

  • Thread starter Thread starter AC24
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graphing Points
AI Thread Summary
To graph a parabola effectively, it's essential to identify three key points, typically including the vertex and two additional points. The vertex serves as a crucial reference, while the x-intercepts and y-intercept can provide further guidance. If x-intercepts are not available, selecting points on either side of the vertex can help create an accurate sketch. For example, using the equation y=3(x-1)^2-9, the vertex is (1,-9), and additional points can be calculated by choosing x values around the vertex. Ultimately, the goal is to create a rough sketch that captures the parabola's shape based on these points.
AC24
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hey guys what's up? I am new to this forum, so I am sorry if I posted in the wrong area..

Anyways, I have a question on Parabolas. I know how to find the Vertex, Axis of Symmetry, X,Y Int. and so on, but I am having trouble graphing it. My teacher said I need to find three good points to graph it, but I have no idea what she means. I mean I know how to graph it, but the A variable throws me off.. I'll give an example:

y=3(x-1)2-9
Vertex: (1,-9)
Axis of Symmetry: x=1
Width- Narrow
Direction- Up
X Int.= 1 plus/minus square root of 3
Y Int.= -6
Min: y=-9

How would you get three good points from this? Thank you so much to those that take the time to read and help!
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
So you're asking how would you get three points from the four that you already have?

In a case like the above I'd normally start with just the vertex and the two x-intercepts to make a rough sketch, you can use the y-intercept also as guide to keep it somewhat accurate.

Remember however that you won't always have real x-intercepts, but you can always calculate as many additional points as you wish if you want to make the sketch more accurate.

All your teacher really wants is that you be able to make a quick rough (approximate) sketch of a parabola based on the vertex and few points either side of it.
 
Uart makes a good point, I hope you do notice that with the information you posted there are indeed 4 points.

1) the vertex ----> (1, -9)

2 and 3) the X intercepts -----> (1+sqrt(3), 0) and (1 - sqrt(3), 0)

4) the y intercept (0, -6)

You could certain use these 4.

One thing to add though, is it is possible that your parabola won't have any x-intercepts, and/or your vertex will also be one or both of your intercepts.

So one thing to do is to pick two points to the left and right of your vertex.

For simplification imagine your parabolas equation is y = 4x^2

The Vertex and all the intercepts will be the origin (0, 0). So what you could do is just pick an x value less then 0 and greater then 0 to find two new points. say x = +/-2. Plug these two x values into the original equation and solve for y. In this case you will get the points (2, 16) and (-2, 16).

Good luck with your conic sections.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top