Moving the graph to the right -- What do you think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 0kelvin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graph
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the concept of graph translation in calculus, particularly how moving a function to the right or left is represented mathematically. The user explores the implications of the transformation f(x - n) and relates it to composite functions, emphasizing the connection between graph equations and their translations on the x-y plane. An example is provided using a piecewise function to illustrate how the transformation affects the function's output. Additionally, a physics analogy is drawn with wave disturbances, demonstrating how a function can represent a traveling wave. Overall, the discussion seeks to deepen the understanding of graph translations beyond standard textbook explanations.
0kelvin
Messages
50
Reaction score
5
I'm studying calculus alone with textbooks. The part about moving the graphs to the right or to the left struck me because they just have a list of rules, properties and make you relate the graph with the corresponding equation. I know what is the rate of change and I thought I could do better than the textbook.

I vectorized this to explain why: f(x - n) moves the parabola to the right.

func_sideways.png

Not satisfied I though. f(x - 2) does remind me of the concept of a composite function. Can I draw something to explain this and relate it to the rate of change?

translation2.png
 
  • Like
Likes mcastillo356
Mathematics news on Phys.org
With a graph described with an equation ##f(x,y)=0## given, another graph
f(x-a,y-b)=0
is a translation of that graph with vector (a,b) on x-y plane. For an example say (0,0) is on the original graph, it is translated to (a,b) on the new one.
 
Last edited:
0kelvin said:
I'm studying calculus alone with textbooks. The part about moving the graphs to the right or to the left struck me because they just have a list of rules, properties and make you relate the graph with the corresponding equation. I know what is the rate of change and I thought I could do better than the textbook.
Take a function that is zero everywhere except the origin:$$f(x)=\begin{cases} 1 & x = 0 \\ 0 & x \ne 0 \end{cases}$$Now define ##g(x) = f(x -2)##. Note that ##g(2) = f(0) = 1##, hence:$$g(x)=\begin{cases} 1 & x = 2 \\ 0 & x \ne 2 \end{cases}$$And we see that ##g(x)## is ##f(x)## moved to the right.
 
  • Like
Likes mcastillo356
Here's a related example from physics: a traveling wave disturbance on a string.

Suppose a disturbance has a profile F(x) along a string.
[In physicist's notation...]
F(x-vt) describes that disturbance translating (traveling without distortion) to the right with constant velocity v.

At t=0, consider the disturbance at the string location x=1: F(1).
After a time t, F(1)=F(x-vt) where 1=x-vt.
Since t increases, x must increase to keep x-vt=1. (Indeed, x=vt+1.)
...and similarly for other locations.
Thus, the disturbance moves to the right.

See https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bjt6dleg5h
from
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...mean-in-the-wave-equation.836348/post-5254546
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
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...
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