I did not understand the way in the easy graph (002) - Study and job offers - HWzone Forums
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

I did not understand the way in a light graph (002)


Recommended Posts

Did I understand the idea, just the proof?

In other words, I can not really recognize that this is a figure (beyond this crooked drawing).

Where did you get it from?


And in the same tone another question:


Section C - I fail to solve the equation when I equate the function to a line:


In the answers in the book they did something rather strange,

"+ -2" and the entire fraction are multiplied by 4 and thus they also reached the result.

How and why

Link to content
Share on other sites

You were supposed to understand thatB on the Y-axis from the drawing in exactly the same way that you understood that C and D on the X-axis, there is no other source.


As for the second question, they are missing the x next to the 4 in the first steps maybe that is what confused you but the rest of the solution is fine, bring the equation into a canonical form and place in the formula, nothing beyond that. I do not see any doubling at 4.

Link to content
Share on other sites

Walla, you're absolutely right. In practice, the values ​​of the cut points of the parabola with the X-axis are not necessarily points D or C.

This "heating" is not based on drawing alone. I do not know, I just remember that in high school they were smart with sketches so I tend to be careful.

Is there anything else to say about this? Or do you just live with it like that?


Regarding the second question -

First of all you are right that X is missing next to the 4, but unfortunately this is my "wrong" solution (not their solution).

Here's the way they did there (yes, they too got confused there with the number 6 instead of 4 there as a coefficient of X. Do not refer)


And yet I do not understand how it did work for them compared to the equation I made.

I just feed this 16 root and the calculator gives me 2 root 7 rather than + -2 and then double their 4.

What exactly did they do there that they came to this solution? And why does the calculator insist on not recognizing this performance !?

Link to content
Share on other sites


This discussion has been archived and new comments can not be added.

  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site