MHB -gre.ge.04 intersection of parabola and line

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around finding the value of \( v \) at the intersection of a linear function and a quadratic function, given that the vertex of the quadratic is at \( (4,19) \). The equations of the functions are established, leading to the quadratic equation \( x^2 - 4x - 12 = 0 \), which factors to \( (x-6)(x+2) \). The value of \( v \) is determined to be 6, as it falls within the specified range of \( 4 < v < 8 \). Additional coordinates for the intersection points are suggested as \( (5,11) \) and \( (6,15) \). The analysis concludes with a confirmation of the calculations and the importance of the secant line in understanding the intersections.
karush
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,240
Reaction score
5
054.png

$\textbf{xy-plane}$ above shows one of the two points of intersection of the graphs of a linear function and and quadratic function.
The shown point of intersection has coordinates $\textbf{(v,w)}$ If the vertex of the graph of the quadratic function is at $\textbf{(4,19)}$,
what is the value of $\textbf{v}$?
${-6}\quad {6}\quad {5}\quad {7}\quad {8}$

ok before I plow into this one it seems obvious that v could not be known for certain by observation
(the graph does not look it is to scale)
so then we can only proceed with the intersections of the equations of
$$y=a(x-4)^2 +19 \quad y=\dfrac{9}{2}x-9$$

unless some other quickie could apply
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
the line has equation $y=4x-9$

note the secant line from (0,3) to (4,19) is parallel to the line $y=4x-9$
 
skeeter said:
the line has equation $y=4x-9$
note the secant line from (0,3) to (4,19) is parallel to the line $y=4x-9$
$-\left(x^{2}-8x+16\right)-4x+9+19=0$
$x^{2}-4x-12=0$
$(x-6)(x+2)$
v=6

ok I couldn't see how the secant would make things obvious
 
Last edited:
karush said:

$\textbf{xy-plane}$ above shows one of the two points of intersection of the graphs of a linear function and and quadratic function.
The shown point of intersection has coordinates $\textbf{(v,w)}$ If the vertex of the graph of the quadratic function is at $\textbf{(4,19)}$,
what is the value of $\textbf{v}$?
${-6}\quad {6}\quad {5}\quad {7}\quad {8}$

ok before I plow into this one it seems obvious that v could not be known for certain by observation
(the graph does not look it is to scale)
so then we can only proceed with the intersections of the equations of
$$y=a(x-4)^2 +19 \quad y=\dfrac{9}{2}x-9$$
No! If x= 2, this gives y= 9- 9= 0, not -1. The point (2, -1) is just below the x-axis, not on it.

unless some other quickie could apply
 
karush said:
$-\left(x^{2}-8x+16\right)-4x+9+19=0$
$x^{2}-4x-12=0$
$(x-6)(x+2)$
v=6

ok I couldn't see how the secant would make things obvious

$\dfrac{w - (-1)}{v - 2} = 4$

note from the graph that $4 <v < 8$ and $3 < w < 19$

so, only two possible coordinates for $(v,w)$ ...

$(5,11)$ and $(6, 15)$

$(5,11)$ would be vertically midway between $(0,3)$ and $(4,19)$ if it were $(v,w)$.
 
ok i see
mahalo much
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top