Regarding functions how can simplifying a function change it's domain

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around how simplifying a function can affect its domain, particularly focusing on the function f(x) = (x² - 1)/(x + 1) and its simplified form g(x) = x - 1. Participants explore the implications of simplification on the validity of the functions at specific points, especially at x = -1.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants illustrate that f(x) = (x² - 1)/(x + 1) simplifies to g(x) = x - 1, but this simplification is not valid at x = -1, where f(x) has a hole.
  • Others emphasize that the two functions are equivalent except at x = -1, where f and g are not the same function.
  • One participant notes that symbolic manipulations should be approached with caution to avoid faulty deductions, highlighting the importance of understanding the underlying mathematics.
  • There are mentions of common traps in algebra, such as division by zero, which can lead to misunderstandings about function domains.
  • Some participants express curiosity about how to better identify such issues in mathematical expressions over time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that simplifying a function can change its domain, particularly due to points where the original function is undefined. However, there is no consensus on a single method for spotting these issues, and multiple perspectives on the implications of simplification are presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on understanding the conditions under which simplifications are valid, particularly regarding division by zero and the behavior of functions at specific points.

Marmoteer
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
for example
if f(x) = \frac{x^{2} - 1}{x+1}

they by factoring:

f(x) = \frac{x^{2} - 1}{x+1}<br /> = \frac{(x + 1)(x - 1)}{x+1} <br /> = x - 1

thus the simplified version is x - 1

let's say g(x) = simplified f(x)

g(x) = x - 1

meaning g(x) = f(x)

but

g(-1) ≠ f(-1)

am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
##f(x) = \frac {x^2-1}{x+1}##
##f(0) = \frac {0^2-1}{0+1}##
##f(0) = -1##

##g(x) = x-1##
##g(0) = 0-1##
##g(0) =-1##
The two functions act the same except at x = -1 at which ##f(x)## has a hole at -1.
 
Oops Sorry I meant to write g(-1) ≠ f(-1)
 
how can simplifying a function change it's domain

Symbolic manipulations in math are an abbreviation for thought, not a substitute for it. If you "simplify" an expression without thinking about it, you can make a faulty deduction. The correct deduction is

\frac{(x+1) (x-1)}{x+1} = x-1 except when x = -1.

There may be types of math where you only manipulate symbols and never use ordinary language, but algebra is not one of them.
 
Marmoteer said:
for example
if f(x) = \frac{x^{2} - 1}{x+1}

they by factoring:

f(x) = \frac{x^{2} - 1}{x+1}<br /> = \frac{(x + 1)(x - 1)}{x+1} <br /> = x - 1

thus the simplified version is x - 1

let's say g(x) = simplified f(x)

g(x) = x - 1

meaning g(x) = f(x)
What you are "missing" is that this is not true. What is true is that f(x)= g(x) for all x except x= -1. f and g are NOT the same function.

but

g(-1) ≠ f(-1)

am I missing something?
 
Stephen Tashi said:
Symbolic manipulations in math are an abbreviation for thought, not a substitute for it. If you "simplify" an expression without thinking about it, you can make a faulty deduction. The correct deduction is

\frac{(x+1) (x-1)}{x+1} = x-1 except when x = -1.

There may be types of math where you only manipulate symbols and never use ordinary language, but algebra is not one of them.

Is there an easy way to spot a problem like this, or is it something you just get better at over time?
 
You should have learned long ago that you cannot divide by 0 so that the division in
\frac{(x- 1)(x+1)}{x+1}= x- 1
is only valid when x+ 1\ne 0 which is only true when x\ne -1.
 
mesa said:
Is there an easy way to spot a problem like this, or is it something you just get better at over time?

There are common traps, like expessions that "don't work" for some values of variables because they involve division by zero or square roots of negative numbers etc.

You'll get better at spotting the common traps over time if you become suspicious of any form of calculation. Don't trust. Don't believe.
 
Stephen Tashi said:
There are common traps, like expessions that "don't work" for some values of variables because they involve division by zero or square roots of negative numbers etc.

You'll get better at spotting the common traps over time if you become suspicious of any form of calculation. Don't trust. Don't believe.

The dividing by zero makes a lot of sense, I was surprised to see it still apllied even when the numerator would also equal 0 hence 0/0. I will certainly be mindful of this and irrational numbers in the future, thanks for the tip!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K