Question about modular functions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Taturana
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the conditions for defining a modular function, specifically f(x) = |2x + 4| + 3. It clarifies that the function can be expressed in piecewise form based on the continuity of the absolute value function. The participants emphasize that since f(x) is continuous, the two pieces must align at the point where x = -2. If the function were not continuous, one could determine the correct inequality by evaluating the function at the point of interest. Ultimately, the continuity of f(x) ensures that the piecewise definition is valid and consistent.
Taturana
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Suppose I have any modular function, for example:

f(x) = |2x + 4| + 3

I can rewrite the function in the following way:

f(x) = \left\{\begin{matrix}<br /> 2x + 7, \;\; x \geq -2\\<br /> -2x -1, \;\; x &lt; -2 <br /> <br /> \end{matrix}\right.

right?

Okay, the question is: how do I know that the first condition is \geq and second condition is < and not vice-versa?

Thank you,
Rafael Andreatta
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It doesn't matter, because |x| is a continuous function. What's the value of f(x) for x=-2?
 
Petr Mugver said:
It doesn't matter, because |x| is a continuous function. What's the value of f(x) for x=-2?

1. You mean, because |x| is a continuous function or because f is a continuous function?

2. What if it was not continuous?
 
f(x) is a continuous function, so the two halves of the definition must agree where they meet up.

Since adding and multiplying and composing continuous functions is a continuous function, and sum of absolute value functions like f(x) here will be continuous. In the event you're doing something like dividing by the absolute value of x, then you can just:
plug in the value of x for which you're unsure and compare it to your formulae. See which one it agrees with. If the function isn't defined for that value of x, then you don't need to decide which inequality gets the equal sign because you aren't defining the function anyway
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Back
Top