MHB Plotting y=x^1/3 - Why Different Results?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yankel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Plotting
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the discrepancies observed when plotting the graph of y=x^(1/3) using different plotters. It highlights that while the plots agree for x > 0, they diverge for x < 0 due to the handling of fractional powers. One plotter may incorrectly apply logarithmic calculations, leading to undefined results for negative x, as logarithms of negative numbers do not exist. The conversation also notes that calculators often evaluate fractional powers without accommodating negative bases properly. Ultimately, the proper definition of x^(1/3) for negative x is contingent on the denominator being an odd integer, which is not universally supported by calculators.
Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

I was using the computer in order to plot the graph of

\[y=x^{\frac{1}{3}}=\sqrt[3]{x}\]

and two different plotters gave two different results. I don't understand why. Can you kindly explain ?

The results are:

View attachment 8447

View attachment 8448

Thank you !
 

Attachments

  • plot 1.PNG
    plot 1.PNG
    1.4 KB · Views: 113
  • plot 2.PNG
    plot 2.PNG
    2.3 KB · Views: 122
Mathematics news on Phys.org
First, of course, those are the same for x> 0 just scaled differently. As for x< 0 it looks like the first plotter is using logarithms "unthinkingly" to calculate fractional powers and the logarithm of negative numbers do not exist.
 
Generally $x^{1/3}$ is considered to be undefined for negative $x$, although some books do effectively define it as $-(-x)^{1/3}$.

Reasons are:
  1. The power identity $a^{b\cdot c}=(a^b)^c$ breaks down. Consider:
    $$-1 = (-1)^{2/3\cdot 3/2} \ne ((-1)^{2/3})^{3/2} = 1^{3/2} = 1$$
  2. Calculators evaluate it as $x^{0.33333}$, which is undefined for negative x.
    Note that we can only define something like $x^{1/3}$ for negative x if the power is a fraction with an odd number in the denominator, but that is generally not supported by calculators.
 
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