Symmetricity of exponential graphs

  • Thread starter Thread starter asd1249jf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponential Graphs
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the symmetry of two exponential functions, f(x) and g(x), with respect to the line x = 2. Participants initially debate whether the functions are symmetric, concluding that they are not, as f(2) does not equal g(2) and they are reciprocals instead. The correct condition for symmetry is clarified to be f(2+x) = g(2-x) for all x. Further exploration reveals that the functions can be expressed as g(x) = f(4-x), leading to confusion about the implications of this relationship. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of understanding symmetry in exponential functions and the need for precise definitions in mathematical problems.
asd1249jf

Homework Statement


Suppose two exponential functions, f(x) and g(x) are symmetric with respect to x = 2.

f(x)=a^{bx-1}
g(x)=a^{1-bx}

Prove f(2) = g(2)

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


This isn't actually a problem. This is a property used to solve a different problem which I really had a hard time understanding. Why is this true?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I might be completely misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but the functions you give are not symmetric with respect to the line x = 2, and furthermore, f(2) \neq g(2). The two functions are reciprocals of one another, though.

f(2) = a^{2b - 1}
g(2) = a^{1 - 2b} = a^{-(2b -1)} = \frac{1}{a^{2b - 1}} = \frac{1}{f(2)}

If the two functions were the mirror images of each other across the line x = 2, it would have to be the case that f(2 + x) = g(2 - x). For example, f(3) would have to be equal to g(1), which is not the case.

Can you clarify what you're trying to do?
 
Well, here's the whole problem:

The two exponential functions

f(x)=a^{bx-1}
g(x)=a^{1-bx}

Satisfy the following conditions

a)Functions y = f(x) and y=g(x) are symmetric to the line x = 2 when graphed
b)f(4) + g(4) = \frac {5}{2}

Find a and b.
 
a^(bx-1) is not symmetric with respect to any x value unless either b=0 or a=1. a=1 doesn't work if f(4)+g(4)=5/2. Hence b=0. So a+a^(-1)=5/2. That's easy to solve. Is this problem as silly as that?
 
Perhaps the question is intended to mean

f(2-x)=g(x-2) for all x.
 
So b(2-x)-1=1-b(x-2) for all x? About all I get out of that is 1=(-1).
 
Sorry, I meant of course that the condition is

f(2+x)=g(2-x) for all x.
 
borgwal said:
Sorry, I meant of course that the condition is

f(2+x)=g(2-x) for all x.

No, I'm sorry. I knew what you meant to say, but I didn't check that f(2-x)=g(x-2) was not the symmetry we were both thinking of. Yeah, that seems to give a reasonable answer for a and b. l46kok, look at how I tried to derive the value of b incorrectly and use borgwal's corrected condition on f and g to get b.
 
Something is wrong, the answer is supposed to be

a+b = 1 though
 
  • #10
I asked my professor and he told me that

g(x) = f(4 - x), f(x) = g(4 - x), since x is symmetric to 2

Now I'm even more confused.
 
  • #11
l46kok said:
I asked my professor and he told me that

g(x) = f(4 - x), f(x) = g(4 - x), since x is symmetric to 2

Now I'm even more confused.

Why don't you try substituting that condition into the definitions of f(x) and g(x)?
 
  • #12
g(x) = f(4 - x), f(x) = g(4 - x), and f(x - 2) = g(x + 2) actually all say the same thing in a slightly different way.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K