Symmetricity of exponential graphs

  • Thread starter Thread starter asd1249jf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponential Graphs
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
11 replies · 5K views
asd1249jf

Homework Statement


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

[tex]f(x)=a^{bx-1}[/tex]
[tex]g(x)=a^{1-bx}[/tex]

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) [tex]\neq[/tex] g(2). The two functions are reciprocals of one another, though.

[tex]f(2) = a^{2b - 1}[/tex]
[tex]g(2) = a^{1 - 2b} = a^{-(2b -1)} = \frac{1}{a^{2b - 1}} = \frac{1}{f(2)}[/tex]

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

[tex]f(x)=a^{bx-1}[/tex]
[tex]g(x)=a^{1-bx}[/tex]

Satisfy the following conditions

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

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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)?
 
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.