Piecewise function radians and numbers ?

AI Thread Summary
The piecewise function presented includes two segments: (x − 1)^2 for x > 1 and tan x for −π/2 < x ≤ 0. Radians are used to measure angles, with π/2 radians approximately equal to 1.57. The function is undefined for the interval 0 < x ≤ 1, indicating a gap in its definition. Understanding the function requires recognizing the distinction between radians and standard numerical values. Proper interpretation and graphing will highlight these characteristics effectively.
fran1942
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Hello, I have encountered the following piecewise function:

(x − 1)^2 if x > 1
tan x if −π/2 < x ≤ 0

How would I interpret/graph this, as it seems to be referring to radians and regular numbers ?
Thanks for any help.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Radians are a way to name angles. With radians, you would say pi/2 radians. pi/2 is just a number, equal to approx 1.57
 
Your function, by the way, is not defined for 0&lt; x\le 1.
 
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