How Accurate Are Your Function Transformations?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around verifying the accuracy of function transformations in a homework problem. The original poster expresses uncertainty about their solutions, particularly for parts (c) and (d), where they misapplied transformation rules. Feedback indicates that the calculations for f(x+1) were correct, but the approach for f(3x) was flawed, as it required dividing by 3 rather than multiplying. Additionally, there is confusion regarding the coordinates for Point A in part (a), which were derived correctly but misunderstood in context. Overall, the thread emphasizes the importance of correctly applying transformation rules to achieve accurate results.
ninjamonke
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I did the problem but I just need to make sure I did it correctly.. If I did it incorrectly, please let me know.

Homework Statement



Page 1: http://i55.tinypic.com/25sosgp.jpg (Zoom in)

Page 2: http://i52.tinypic.com/ofyds5.jpg (Zoom in)

Homework Equations



Problem 4 a-d

The Attempt at a Solution



You can see it on the picture.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ninjamonke said:
I did the problem but I just need to make sure I did it correctly.. If I did it incorrectly, please let me know.

Homework Statement



Page 1: http://i55.tinypic.com/25sosgp.jpg (Zoom in)

Page 2: http://i52.tinypic.com/ofyds5.jpg (Zoom in)

Homework Equations



Problem 4 a-d

The Attempt at a Solution



You can see it on the picture.

I don't think your parts (c) and (d) are appropriate.

For f(x+1) you gave the point (-3, 1) because indeed f(-3+1) = f(-2), which was given.

but for f(3x) you gave (-6, 1) however f(3*-6) = f(-18) which you don't know?
Similarly part (d) doesn't work out either.
 
PeterO said:
I don't think your parts (c) and (d) are appropriate.

For f(x+1) you gave the point (-3, 1) because indeed f(-3+1) = f(-2), which was given.

but for f(3x) you gave (-6, 1) however f(3*-6) = f(-18) which you don't know?
Similarly part (d) doesn't work out either.

Then part (b) should be wrong also. I did the same approach for part (c) and (d).

Can you explain how I got the the Point A coordinates (0, 3/2) on part (a) on the last column? It was already done in the book for Point A of part (a) only.

I also made the graph of these coordinates and it's moving/shifting the right way like it's supposed to, I think.
 
ninjamonke said:
Then part (b) should be wrong also. I did the same approach for part (c) and (d).

You might think you did the same thing, but you didn't

When you did f(x+1), you didn't add one to the x value, you subtracted one - because after you put it through (x+1) the 1 is added back on - ie if x = -3, then f(-3+1) = f(-2) which you know.

However, when you did f(3x) you still multiplied by 3 ? your said x = -6. But if x = -6, f(3x) means f(-18) which you don't know. You should have divided by 3.

Part d you also didn't do the inverse to x either.



ninjamonke said:
Can you explain how I got the the Point A coordinates (0, 3/2) on part (a) on the last column? It was already done in the book for Point A of part (a) only.

you were using y = 1/2 * f(x+1) so it is not surprising that a 3 became a 3/2
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top