News:

Pretty crazy that we're closer to 2030, than we are 2005. Where did the time go!

Main Menu

[MATH] Calculus Review Packet

Started by Newby, October 24, 2006, 11:58:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Newby

I need help.

QuoteIf f(x1) + f(x2) = f(x1 + x2), for all real numbers x1 and x2, which of the following could define it?

A. f(x) = x + 1
B. f(x) = 2x
C. f(x) = 1 / x
D. f(x) = ex
E. f(x) = x2

The answer is B. But how would I prove that? I tried plugging in infinite for x1 and x2, and got f(infinite + infinite) which = f(2*infinite), which could be f(2x); is that right? Or are my math skills shit? :p

EDIT -- After looking over my review packet, I realized plugging in random numbers was not this one; it was some limit that I was not sure about.
- Newby
http://www.x86labs.org

Quote[17:32:45] * xar sets mode: -oooooooooo algorithm ban chris cipher newby stdio TehUser tnarongi|away vursed warz
[17:32:54] * xar sets mode: +o newby
[17:32:58] <xar> new rule
[17:33:02] <xar> me and newby rule all

Quote from: Rule on June 30, 2008, 01:13:20 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 30, 2008, 10:38:22 AM
I'd bet that you're currently bloated like a water ballon on a hot summer's day.

That analogy doesn't even make sense.  Why would a water balloon be especially bloated on a hot summer's day? For your sake, I hope there wasn't too much logic testing on your LSAT. 

Sidoh


Chavo

#2
Quote from: Newby on October 24, 2006, 11:58:17 PM
f(infinite + infinite) which = f(2*infinite), which could be f(2x);
2*infinity is just infinity

Sidoh

You guys both suck at spelling infinity.

Chavo


Sidoh


Newby

Quote from: unTactical on October 25, 2006, 09:42:32 AM
Quote from: Newby on October 24, 2006, 11:58:17 PM
f(infinite + infinite) which = f(2*infinite), which could be f(2x);
2*infinity is just infinity

Yeah. Today I realized it was dumb.

And it turns out I had to pick through the answers and try each one. so eh! :)
- Newby
http://www.x86labs.org

Quote[17:32:45] * xar sets mode: -oooooooooo algorithm ban chris cipher newby stdio TehUser tnarongi|away vursed warz
[17:32:54] * xar sets mode: +o newby
[17:32:58] <xar> new rule
[17:33:02] <xar> me and newby rule all

Quote from: Rule on June 30, 2008, 01:13:20 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 30, 2008, 10:38:22 AM
I'd bet that you're currently bloated like a water ballon on a hot summer's day.

That analogy doesn't even make sense.  Why would a water balloon be especially bloated on a hot summer's day? For your sake, I hope there wasn't too much logic testing on your LSAT. 

Sidoh

Not to mention , and are undefined. ;)

dark_drake

Quote from: Sidoh on October 25, 2006, 09:18:30 PM
Not to mention . . . undefined.
Isn't it 0? I only ask because that's what we do in calculus.
errr... something like that...

Chavo

Quote from: dark_drake on October 25, 2006, 11:57:20 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on October 25, 2006, 09:18:30 PM
Not to mention . . . undefined.
Isn't it 0? I only ask because that's what we do in calculus.
Pretty sure its undefined.  Back when I took calc2, we always used 'no solution' as the answer to any problem that winded up with a 1/infinity in it.

dark_drake

Quote from: unTactical on October 26, 2006, 12:11:26 AM
Quote from: dark_drake on October 25, 2006, 11:57:20 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on October 25, 2006, 09:18:30 PM
Not to mention . . . undefined.
Isn't it 0? I only ask because that's what we do in calculus.
Pretty sure its undefined.  Back when I took calc2, we always used 'no solution' as the answer to any problem that winded up with a 1/infinity in it.
According to wikipedia, .
errr... something like that...

Rule

?

So if you were asked what the limit of a/x is, as x --> infinity, you would write 'undefined'?  That's horrible, and wrong: your teacher should be disciplined :P. A constant over infinity is definitely zero, and even in rigorous mathematics we sometimes define 0 * infinity = 0 (and this is certainly less obvious).

Chavo

I must be thinking of something else.  I'm not a math nerd like certain other individuals around these parts :P

Sidoh

Quote from: Rule on October 26, 2006, 01:08:52 AM
?

So if you were asked what the limit of a/x is, as x --> infinity, you would write 'undefined'?  That's horrible, and wrong: your teacher should be disciplined :P. A constant over infinity is definitely zero, and even in rigorous mathematics we sometimes define 0 * infinity = 0 (and this is certainly less obvious).

No, I would write 0.  Does imply that the denominator is some arbitrary variable approaching infinity, then?

Rule

Quote from: Sidoh on October 26, 2006, 02:08:22 AM
Quote from: Rule on October 26, 2006, 01:08:52 AM
?

So if you were asked what the limit of a/x is, as x --> infinity, you would write 'undefined'?  That's horrible, and wrong: your teacher should be disciplined :P. A constant over infinity is definitely zero, and even in rigorous mathematics we sometimes define 0 * infinity = 0 (and this is certainly less obvious).

No, I would write 0.  Does imply that the denominator is some arbitrary variable approaching infinity, then?

It depends.  Most people who write 1/infinity mean more precisely lim y--> infinity 1/y, so the answer is "yes" in most cases.  However, I think saying "yes" for all cases would be over-restrictive, unless we add all sorts of conditions about the "rate" of approaching infinity, etc.  Regardless of whether you think of infinity as some 'closed entity' (for lack of a better term) or not, (and some would argue that this is a bad interpretation, although I think it does have some merit), we can see that in this particular case 1/'infinity' and lim x--> infinity 1/x are equivalent, as both equal zero.