You are not logged in.
One more step:
And we are done!
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
One more step:
And we are done!
Ahhh I get it. Last quick question, what if it was 4x + 6? Wouldn't that be the same method as you showed me?? Just explain it. I don't want to waste a lot of your time.
Last edited by BlitzBall (2012-01-17 11:57:59)
Offline
Hi;
You would first minus 6 from both sides and then divide by 4 to both sides.
It is time to sleep for a couple of hours, I am really tired. I will see you later and help with the compositions if no one else has
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi;
You would first minus 6 from both sides and then divide by 4 to both sides.
It is time to sleep for a couple of hours, I am really tired. I will see you later and help with the compositions if no one else has
Oh right I will give it a try. Thank you, Bob. Good Night
Offline
Hi BlitzBall;
Well rested and ready to go!
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi BlitzBall;
Well rested and ready to go!
Hi, I'm ready to go
Offline
Okay, what problems are you working on, I forgot.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Okay, what problems are you working on, I forgot.
The composition of functions.
Offline
Hi;
I meant in particular.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi;
I meant in particular.
Like getting putting g into f and f into g. I get mixed up on which way to input correctly.
Offline
Hi;
f(x)=2x+3
g(x) = x+3
This just means:
So for every x in f(x) we substitue a g(x)
Follow up to here?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi;
f(x)=2x+3
g(x) = x+3
This just means:
So for every x in f(x) we substitue a g(x)
Follow up to here?
I think I get it. When there is x in f(x) and g(x), it can't be turned into x^2.
Offline
Hi;
Not exactly, all we are doing is substituting. Then we have some algebra to clean it up.
Let's do another one:
Wherever the is an x , we substitue g(x) for it and g(x) = 2x.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi;
Not exactly, all we are doing is substituting. Then we have some algebra to clean it up.
Let's do another one:
Wherever the is an x , we substitue g(x) for it and g(x) = 2x.
Ohhh okay. I think I get that. I was wondering why do we need the brackets?
Last edited by BlitzBall (2012-01-18 01:57:22)
Offline
Okay, I will put another one down and you do it for me:
What is?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Okay, I will put another one down and you do it for me:
What is?
(x^2+1)+4 ??
Offline
Hi;
Not quite. But do not get discouraged you will soon do it like a champion.
See the x in the equation
f(x) = x + 4? I want you to put a g(x) wherever you see one.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi;
Not quite. But do not get discouraged you will soon do it like a champion.
See the x in the equation
f(x) = x + 4? I want you to put a g(x) wherever you see one.
Hmmm. Putting g(x) will result in x(x+1)+4 ?
Offline
Hi;
You skipped a step.
f(x) = x + 4
Now putting a g(x) wherever we have a x in f(x) we get:
f(g(x)) = g(x) + 4
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi;
You skipped a step.
f(x) = x + 4
Now putting a g(x) wherever we have a x in f(x) we get:
f(g(x)) = g(x) + 4
Ohhh I get that. In that step you just plot g(x) in x from f(x).
Offline
Yes, you replace every x with a g(x), now you have:
f(g(x)) = g(x) + 4
Now from post #40 we have g(x) = x + 1. Now take and change each g(x) into x + 1.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Okay. f(x) = g(x) + 4 ? Or is it the wrong way round?
Offline
Hi;
Hold it, watch what I am doing.
f(g(x)) = g(x) + 4
See the boldfaced g(x) in the above equation?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi;
Hold it, watch what I am doing.
f(g(x)) = g(x) + 4
See the boldfaced g(x) in the above equation?
OOh yeaah. I forgot to put that on. oops.
Offline
HI;
f(g(x)) = g(x) + 4
Now we replace that g(x) with x + 1 because g(x) = x + 1.
f(x+1) = x+1 + 4
See how each g(x) was replaced by a x+1?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline