Login | Register

Nerd Paradise

Madmen wanted
The Forum > Math & Science > Math Problem Thread
Page: < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 25 26 Next >
Could anyone help me with finding the vertex of a parabola from an equation? An example equation I have is f(x)=x^(2)-2x+1
[Quote] [Link]
Well an inverse that is a function doesn't exist but by inverse I meant reverse mapping. I don't work well with words, but if you give me the function I will look at it and see what I come up with.
[Quote] [Link]
The vertex of a parabola will always have an x coordinate of X = -b/2a. Then solve for the y value.

a is the coefficient of the x^2 term; b is the coefficient of the x term; c is the constant.
[Quote] [Link]
:D Thanks! That helped a bit.
[Quote] [Link]
Well an inverse that is a function doesn't exist but by inverse I meant reverse mapping. I don't work well with words, but if you give me the function I will look at it and see what I come up with.
It's f(x) = x3 - x. I can't think of a mapping that would work (the mapping would certainly not be a function.)

I did however think of a workaround. Since the limit x→∞ = ∞, and the limit x→-∞ = -∞, and since the curve is everywhere differentiable, there's a theorem that states the curve must pass through every y-value between, which means it's onto R. Hopefully the professor won't mind that I didn't prove that f is differentiable. >_>
[Quote] [Link]
My Kumon didn't explain it well so...

What's an orthocenter and a circumcenter? I don't really get it...
[Quote] [Link]
Well, all polynomials are differentiable, so they shouldn't mind all that much.
[Quote] [Link]
True. By the way, if anyone has any idea how to interpret the f([0, 1)) thing (or whatever it was) let me know. I am suspicious of the integral interpretation, and I have no idea how to search for this information on the Internet.
[Quote] [Link]
It looks like an integral for a range, or perhaps coordinates. What I've never seen before is a bracket on the open end and a parenthesis on the close end. That is confusing me. But the last time I did calculus was a half decade ago.

I have a friend with a PhD in the maths. I have e-mailed him to see what he has to say.
[Quote] [Link]
Hehe. I will refer back to this thread later today. (yayz for school not)
p.s. I thought that the sup was very appropriate.
[Quote] [Link]
It looks like an integral for a range, or perhaps coordinates. What I've never seen before is a bracket on the open end and a parenthesis on the close end. That is confusing me. But the last time I did calculus was a half decade ago.

I have a friend with a PhD in the maths. I have e-mailed him to see what he has to say.
Well normally you would exclude a point because the function is not continuous at the point (in which case you'd have to use a limit to evaluate the integral). What's weird is that the function is definitely continuous at ln2, so I see no reason why that point would have been excluded. : /

And thank you for emailing your friend.
[Quote] [Link]
Okay I had some coffee so let me try this again. When mapping R to R, to prove onto, you just have to show that all the elements of.the domain map to a value in the range, and that all the values of in the range are used. Basically just show that all y values will be generated. I think that your differential proof is acceptable.
[Quote] [Link]
he. I do have maths homework but it's a poster...
[Quote] [Link]
wolf said:
Let me go into math teacher mode now:

f([0, ln2)) is a set, and is called the image of the interval [0,ln2) under the function f. It is the set {f(x) such that x is in [0, ln2)}. To generate this set, you go through every point in the interval [0, ln2), apply the function f, and collect the results in the set f([0, ln2)).

For f(x)=e^x, it is simple to determine f([0,ln2)) because e^x is continuous and strictly increasing. Strictly increasing means that if 0<x<ln2, then e^0<e^x<e^(ln2). Since e^x is continuous, the Intermediate Value Theorem says that if e^0<y<e^(ln2), then there is x in (0, ln2) such that y=e^x. These observations allow you to determine e^([0,ln2)) very easily.
[Quote] [Link]
Of course, that makes a lot of sense.

Of course, I turned in the homework like a half hour ago.
[Quote] [Link]
xD. Sorry I couldn't get it to you faster.
[Quote] [Link]
Stupid question: what IS 14x-3? My brain's gone dead XD
[Edit:]
It's -42 am I right?
[Quote] [Link]
If x = -39/14, then yes.
[Quote] [Link]
erm... okay? It's only year 8 maths, nothing major.
[Quote] [Link]
Okay, a less snarky answer is you can't tell what it is without knowing what x is.
[Quote] [Link]
Unless you mean what is x if 14x-3=0. In that case x would equal 3/14
[Quote] [Link]
He might have meant 14 * -3
[Quote] [Link]
xD. Sorry I couldn't get it to you faster.
Haha, no biggie. Thanks for trying, and thank your friend for me if you get the chance. At least I understand it now. ^_^
[Quote] [Link]
He might have meant 14 * -3

Oh, yes, of course you're right. Please ignore the nonsense I wrote above.
[Quote] [Link]
and in that case, he's right. (seems no one actually confirmed that yet)
[Quote] [Link]
Page: < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 25 26 Next >
The Forum > Math & Science > Math Problem Thread
Current Date: 13 Ineo 14:2Current Time: 11.51.57Join us in IRC...
Server: irc.esper.net
Channel: #nerdparadise
Your IP: 107.22.25.119Browser: UnknownBrowser Version: 0