How Can I Graph Rational Functions More Systematically?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around methods for graphing rational functions systematically, particularly in the context of preparing for calculus. Participants explore various techniques and clarify concepts related to intercepts, asymptotes, and the behavior of functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses dissatisfaction with the explanations in a Pre-Calculus workbook, noting typos and unclear instructions on graphing rational functions.
  • Another participant outlines a method for finding x-intercepts, y-intercepts, and vertical asymptotes, emphasizing that vertical asymptotes may not always be valid if the numerator is zero at the same x-value.
  • A suggestion is made to analyze the signs of factors in the numerator and denominator to determine the behavior of the function across different intervals.
  • Participants discuss the importance of shading regions on the graph based on the sign analysis and using additional points to verify the function's behavior.
  • It is noted that squared factors affect the graph's behavior at their roots but do not change sign across those points.
  • One participant mentions that if a factor appears in both the numerator and denominator, the graph resembles the simplified function but is undefined at the point where the factor equals zero.
  • There is a reference to the potential for more accurate graphing techniques to be learned in calculus, suggesting a progression in understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the methods for finding intercepts and asymptotes, as well as the importance of analyzing signs. However, the discussion does not reach a consensus on a single systematic approach, as various techniques and interpretations are presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential for misunderstanding the implications of vertical asymptotes and the behavior of functions at roots, as well as the reliance on specific examples that may not generalize to all rational functions.

Who May Find This Useful

Students preparing for calculus, individuals seeking to improve their understanding of graphing rational functions, and those interested in mathematical reasoning related to function behavior.

Jake4
Messages
111
Reaction score
1
Ok so, This summer I will be taking a Pre-calc/trig course intensive, to get ready to take calculus in the fall, to start up my track for physics.

I got a Pre Calculus Workbook For Dummies and I have to say so far I'm not too pleased.

I have already found a bunch of typos, and when there are typos in the direction of the inequality, or the sign of an answer... that's bad.

anyways, I'm up to graphing rational functions and they're doing a horrible job explaining it.

I guess, I'm slowly learning the rules and what to do:

1. set the top of the fraction =0 and solve to find the x intercept.
2. set x to 0 to find y intercept
3. set denominator to 0 to find vertical asymptotes

I understand that, but I guess the whole idea is wishy washy to me. I am just plugging in numbers randomly and drawing out the graph at that point?

I see a lot of graphs of rational functions that have random twists and turns, and what if I just happen to not plug in a point at that exact spot to find it?

is there a systematic way to work on these? or is it literally find those 3 things I said above, and then just plug away?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Jake4 said:
1. set the top of the fraction =0 and solve to find the x intercept.
2. set x to 0 to find y intercept
3. set denominator to 0 to find vertical asymptotes

Pretty good. 3 gives possible vertical asymptotes, but they might not be if the numerator is zero for the same value of x. But that is something you will learn about in calculus.

Another think you might look at is what is called the extent. If you can factor the numerator and denominator, the signs of the factors determine the sign of the fraction. Here's an example of what I mean:

y = \frac {(x-2)}{x(x+3)}

The sign of y is determined by the signs of the three factors, and each factor changes sign at its corresponding root. The numerator changes sign as x passes through x = 2 and the denominator factors change sign at x = 0 and x = -3, respectively. Those three values are the only places where y can change sign:

---------(-3)--------------(0)------(2)--------------

If x > 2, all three factors are positive, so the y is positive and you can shade out the area under the x-axis for x > 2. Now think of x sliding from the right to the left across x = 2. The numerator factor changes sign there so you have one negative factor and y is negative. So you can shade out the positive y values when x is between 0 and 2. When x moves left across x = 0 another factor changes sign so the fraction becomes positive again.

Over each interval it is convenient to put a little symbol like this to indicate the signs (I have just shown the left one where they are all negative because I can't make them space properly, but hopefully you get the idea):

-
___
- -

---------(-3)--------------(0)------(2)--------------

Once you have shaded where the graph can't be and use you other info, you can almost guess what the graph looks like.
 
dude that was a lot of help, That makes things make a lot more sense

So once I shade appropriately, I'm plugging points to verify specifically where the function is?
 
Jake4 said:
dude that was a lot of help, That makes things make a lot more sense

So once I shade appropriately, I'm plugging points to verify specifically where the function is?

Yes. Once you combine your extent info with your roots and asymptotes, you won't need too many more points. And remember, if a factor is squared like (x-2)2, it will still cause its zero or asymptote depending on whether it is in the numerator or denominator, but it won't change sign as x passes through 2.
 
Jake4 said:
dude that was a lot of help, That makes things make a lot more sense

So once I shade appropriately, I'm plugging points to verify specifically where the function is?

One more little thing that you may have already guessed. If you have the same factor in the numerator and denominator, then the graph looks like the simplified fraction except for the fact that it is undefined where the factor is 0.
Ie., y = (x^2 - 2x + 2)/(x - 1) has the same graph as y = x - 2 except that the point (1, 0) is removed.
Once you learn calculus, you will be able to draw more accurate graphs of the function without relying on plugging in lots of points.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K