How would you prove algebraically that the function: f(x)= |x-2|, x<= 2 , is one to one?
I posted this question myself to be honest because i wasn't sure... but the horizontal line test was made to prove whether the function/graph was an one-to-one function
Expressed algebraically, this is equal to 3x - 1.
A square is a rhombus with right angles so you would need to know one of the angles or an exterior angle or another angle that shares a vertex with the shape.
One plus one does equal two. If you have one object, then bring in another object, you will have one more than what you started with. That would be two.
To prove a statement false, you need ONE example of when it is not true.To prove it true, you need to show it is ALWAYS true.
How would you prove algebraically that the following function is one to one? f(x)= (x+3)^2 , x>= -3?
The answer depends on what you wish to prove!
I posted this question myself to be honest because i wasn't sure... but the horizontal line test was made to prove whether the function/graph was an one-to-one function
No. If an input in a function had more than one output, that would be a mapping, but not a function.
Expressed algebraically, this is equal to 3x - 1.
The zero of a linear function in algebra is the value of the independent variable (x) when the value of the dependent variable (y) is zero. Linear functions that are horizontal do not have a zero because they never cross the x-axis. Algebraically, these functions have the form y = c, where c is a constant. All other linear functions have one zero.For example, if your equation is 3x + 11y = 6, you would substitute zero for y, the term 11y would drop out of the equation and the equation would become 3x = 6x = 2
A square is a rhombus with right angles so you would need to know one of the angles or an exterior angle or another angle that shares a vertex with the shape.
It cannot be simplified algebraically and needs to be calculated.
One would have to figure out the production function of their company pretty early on. The production involves the things they make, and the function is what the product does.
n = (x + 1)2 - 4
If you wish, you can summarize this into ONE type of interference, in which the magnitudes of the wave are added algebraically.
No. Functions should be defined separately. So you would not define a function within a function. You can define one function, and while defining another function, you can call the first function from its code.