My attempt to understand horizontal transformations of functions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding horizontal transformations of functions, specifically focusing on the function f(2x + 1) in relation to its parent function f(x). Participants explore the algebraic manipulation of functions, the implications of transformations, and the relationship between inverse functions and horizontal shifts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a method to manipulate the function f(x) to derive f(2x + 1), suggesting that the x-coordinate transformation involves moving left and scaling.
  • Another participant emphasizes that f(2x + 1) represents a composition of functions, indicating a horizontal compression and a leftward shift.
  • A different participant describes the transformations involved in the function f(2(x + 1/2)), detailing the order of compression and translation.
  • One participant challenges the algebraic manipulations presented earlier, asserting that the initial equations are incorrect and that the transformations do not hold as proposed.
  • Several participants inquire about the relationship between inverse functions and horizontal transformations, with mixed responses regarding their connection.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of algebraic manipulations related to horizontal transformations. There is no consensus on the correctness of the initial approach, and the relationship between inverse functions and horizontal transformations remains contested.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in the algebraic reasoning presented, highlighting potential misunderstandings in the manipulation of functions and the implications of transformations.

logicgate
Messages
13
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
I just want to know if my attempt is valid and correct. If it's not, then how can I improve it to make it better.
So assuming I have a graph of a parent function f(x) and I want to graph for example the function f(2x+1). I need to find a way to manipulate the function f(x) to make it look like the function f(2x+1).
For the parent function f(x) I have coordinates of (x , y).
And for the function f(2x+1) I have coordinates of (???, y).
Since both functions have the y coordinate the same, I can equate both functions : f(2x+1) = f(x).
My goal is to manipulate both sides so that the new function f(2x+1) becomes the same as the parent function.
I begin with subtracting one from both sides : f(2x) = f(x-1)
Then divide both sides by 2 : f(x) = f((x-1)/2)
This tells me that the x-coordinate of f(2x + 1) is (x-1)/2
Which means that if I want to move from parent function to f(2x+1), from every point on parent function I have to move one step to the left then divide by 2 to get into the function f(2x+1)
Is my approach valid ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You should recognise that ##f(2x+1)## is a new function, which is a composition of ##f## and the function ##2x + 1##. I would call this function ##g(x) = f(2x+1)##.

Then ##g(0) = f(1)## and we see that ##g## is ##f## shifted to the left.. Also, ##g(1) = f(3)##, so ##g## is a compressed version of ##f## (horizontally compressed by a factor of 2).

That seems a conceptually clearer way to look at it. Using ##f## for both functions leads to a conceptual tangle.
 
Last edited:
logicgate said:
So assuming I have a graph of a parent function f(x) and I want to graph for example the function f(2x+1).
f(2x + 1) = f(2(x + 1/2)). Here we have two transformations of the graph of y = f(x): a compression toward the y-axis by a factor of 2, and a translation (a rigid shift) to the left by 1/2 unit. These transformations must be "built into" the graph of y = f(x) in that order.

Using a specific example of ##f(x) = x^2##, y = f(2x) results in a thinner (i.e., compressed toward the y-axis version of the graph of y = f(x).
The graph of y = f(2(x + 1/2)) shifts all the points of the graph of y = f(2x) to the left by 1/2 unit. This can be easily verified.

Checking with a few points -- (0, 0), (1, 1), and (2, 4) lie on the graph of ##y = f(x) = x^2##.
From the work above, the graph of ##y = f(2x) = 4x^2## should contain (0, 0), (1, 4), and (2, 16).

Similarly, the graph of ##y = f(2x + 1) = f(2(x + 1/2))## should contain (-1/2, 0), (1/2, 4), and (3/2, 16). One can verify that these are points on the latter graph by noting that ##f(2x + 1) = 4x^2 + 4x + 1## and substituting the three x-values of the sample points into the ##4x^2 + 4x + 1## expression to find the corresponding y-values.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
logicgate said:
I begin with subtracting one from both sides : f(2x) = f(x-1)
Then divide both sides by 2 : f(x) = f((x-1)/2)
Neither of these is correct. First, you've started with an equation that isn't true; namely, f(x) = f(2x + 1). As pointed out by @PeroK, this is the wrong way of looking at things. Second, adding -1 to both sides doesn't result in the equation you showed. ##f(2x+ 1) - 1 \ne f(2x)##. The algebra simply doesn't work that way. For example, is ##\sqrt{2*4 + 1} - 1 = \sqrt 8##?

Similarly, your second equation is also wrong. ##\frac 1 2 f(2x) \ne f(x)##. For example, is \frac 1 2 (2 * 2)^2 = 2^2##?
 
Thanks for the answer. I have a question : Do inverse functions relate to horizontal transformations of graphs ?
Like for example the function |x-1| is treated as |x| shifted one unit to the right. Is it because the inverse of x-1 is x + 1 ?
 
logicgate said:
Thanks for the answer. I have a question : Do inverse functions relate to horizontal transformations of graphs ?
Like for example the function |x-1| is treated as |x| shifted one unit to the right. Is it because the inverse of x-1 is x + 1 ?
Inverse functions graphically are related by swapping the x and y axes.
 
logicgate said:
Do inverse functions relate to horizontal transformations of graphs ?
In general, no. Assuming that y = f(x) has an inverse, the graph of ##y = f^{-1}(x)## is the reflection across the line y = x of the graph of y = f(x). Your examples of y = x - 1 and y = x + 1 are reflections of each other across the line y = x.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K