How is $frac {x^2 + x - 6}{x - 2}$ different from $(x+3)$? [duplicate]
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Why does factoring eliminate a hole in the limit?
13 answers
Why aren't the functions $f(x) = frac{x-1}{x-1}$ and $f(x) = 1$ the same? [duplicate]
3 answers
Let's consider the function:
$$ f(x) = frac {x^2 + x - 6}{x - 2} $$
At x = 2, the value fo the function is undefined, because $ x - 2 $ = 0. But if factor the expression on the numerator, we get $ frac {(x + 3) (x-2)}{x-2} $, which on simplifying yields $ x + 3 $. At $ x = 2 $, the function gives 5, which is not what we get before simplifying.
If all we do too the initial function is simple algebraic manipulation, shouldn't both functions yield the same value?
algebra-precalculus functions arithmetic
marked as duplicate by Martin R, Hans Lundmark, Community♦ Nov 29 at 14:09
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Why does factoring eliminate a hole in the limit?
13 answers
Why aren't the functions $f(x) = frac{x-1}{x-1}$ and $f(x) = 1$ the same? [duplicate]
3 answers
Let's consider the function:
$$ f(x) = frac {x^2 + x - 6}{x - 2} $$
At x = 2, the value fo the function is undefined, because $ x - 2 $ = 0. But if factor the expression on the numerator, we get $ frac {(x + 3) (x-2)}{x-2} $, which on simplifying yields $ x + 3 $. At $ x = 2 $, the function gives 5, which is not what we get before simplifying.
If all we do too the initial function is simple algebraic manipulation, shouldn't both functions yield the same value?
algebra-precalculus functions arithmetic
marked as duplicate by Martin R, Hans Lundmark, Community♦ Nov 29 at 14:09
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
2
Related: Why aren't the functions $f(x) = frac{x-1}{x-1}$ and $f(x) = 1$ the same?
– StackTD
Nov 29 at 12:47
See also: Why can we resolve indeterminate forms?
– StackTD
Nov 29 at 12:48
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Why does factoring eliminate a hole in the limit?
13 answers
Why aren't the functions $f(x) = frac{x-1}{x-1}$ and $f(x) = 1$ the same? [duplicate]
3 answers
Let's consider the function:
$$ f(x) = frac {x^2 + x - 6}{x - 2} $$
At x = 2, the value fo the function is undefined, because $ x - 2 $ = 0. But if factor the expression on the numerator, we get $ frac {(x + 3) (x-2)}{x-2} $, which on simplifying yields $ x + 3 $. At $ x = 2 $, the function gives 5, which is not what we get before simplifying.
If all we do too the initial function is simple algebraic manipulation, shouldn't both functions yield the same value?
algebra-precalculus functions arithmetic
This question already has an answer here:
Why does factoring eliminate a hole in the limit?
13 answers
Why aren't the functions $f(x) = frac{x-1}{x-1}$ and $f(x) = 1$ the same? [duplicate]
3 answers
Let's consider the function:
$$ f(x) = frac {x^2 + x - 6}{x - 2} $$
At x = 2, the value fo the function is undefined, because $ x - 2 $ = 0. But if factor the expression on the numerator, we get $ frac {(x + 3) (x-2)}{x-2} $, which on simplifying yields $ x + 3 $. At $ x = 2 $, the function gives 5, which is not what we get before simplifying.
If all we do too the initial function is simple algebraic manipulation, shouldn't both functions yield the same value?
This question already has an answer here:
Why does factoring eliminate a hole in the limit?
13 answers
Why aren't the functions $f(x) = frac{x-1}{x-1}$ and $f(x) = 1$ the same? [duplicate]
3 answers
algebra-precalculus functions arithmetic
algebra-precalculus functions arithmetic
edited Nov 29 at 13:48
user21820
38.1k541150
38.1k541150
asked Nov 29 at 12:26
WorldGov
2099
2099
marked as duplicate by Martin R, Hans Lundmark, Community♦ Nov 29 at 14:09
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Martin R, Hans Lundmark, Community♦ Nov 29 at 14:09
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
2
Related: Why aren't the functions $f(x) = frac{x-1}{x-1}$ and $f(x) = 1$ the same?
– StackTD
Nov 29 at 12:47
See also: Why can we resolve indeterminate forms?
– StackTD
Nov 29 at 12:48
add a comment |
2
Related: Why aren't the functions $f(x) = frac{x-1}{x-1}$ and $f(x) = 1$ the same?
– StackTD
Nov 29 at 12:47
See also: Why can we resolve indeterminate forms?
– StackTD
Nov 29 at 12:48
2
2
Related: Why aren't the functions $f(x) = frac{x-1}{x-1}$ and $f(x) = 1$ the same?
– StackTD
Nov 29 at 12:47
Related: Why aren't the functions $f(x) = frac{x-1}{x-1}$ and $f(x) = 1$ the same?
– StackTD
Nov 29 at 12:47
See also: Why can we resolve indeterminate forms?
– StackTD
Nov 29 at 12:48
See also: Why can we resolve indeterminate forms?
– StackTD
Nov 29 at 12:48
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
The simplification is only valid for $xneq 2$, so you are not allowed to put $x=2$ into the resulting simplified expression. $f(2)$ is still not defined.
In other words, it is not true that “$f(x)=x+3$”. What is true is that “$f(x)=x+3$ provided that $xneq 2$”.
It is critical to retain any provisos you implicitly introduce when simplifying. To fail to do this is sloppy and result in erroneous conclusions.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
They do agree. But remember that $frac{x^2+x-6}{x-2}$ is not defined at $x = 2$, so technically neither is the $x+3$ you get from simplifying it. Check any other value for $x$, and you will see that they agree.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Note, that when a function is defined, it's not only about a formula but also about its domain.
For the function given
$$f(x) = frac {x^2 + x - 6}{x - 2}$$
if it is to be expressed in that way, it must clearly be $xneq 2$ and thus its domain is $D_f = mathbb R setminus {2}$. This means, that even after the simplification, the value $x=2$ does not belong to the domain of the given function and thus cannot be substituted in.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
This is known as a removable discontinuity. If you check the graph, you would see that the two functions produce the same output at every point except $x = 2$ where the original function is undefined. By simplifying, you removed the discontinuity at that point.
Take this as another example:
$$f_1(x) = frac{x(x+1)}{x+1} quad f_2(x) = x$$
At first, it might seem the two functions are equivalent. Yet, you have to notice $f_2(x)$ is defined for all $x in mathbb{R}$ whereas $f_1(x)$ is defined for $x neq -1$, so the two functions aren't the "same" as their domains differ. They are equivalent at every other point except $x = -1$, where the first function is undefined. (You can think of it as a gap in $f_1(x)$. Otherwise, the graphs look exactly the same.) The exact same idea applies to your example.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Surely not because you are manipulating the definition of continuity. For example$$f(x)=begin{cases}1quad,quad xne 0end{cases}\g(x)=1$$ are clearly different. One is continuous on $Bbb R$ and one is not but we have $$f(x)={xover x}ne 1=g(x)$$You can see the difference in the illustration of the both function. $f(x)$ contains a gap in $x=0$ while $g(x)$ doesn't.
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
The simplification is only valid for $xneq 2$, so you are not allowed to put $x=2$ into the resulting simplified expression. $f(2)$ is still not defined.
In other words, it is not true that “$f(x)=x+3$”. What is true is that “$f(x)=x+3$ provided that $xneq 2$”.
It is critical to retain any provisos you implicitly introduce when simplifying. To fail to do this is sloppy and result in erroneous conclusions.
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
The simplification is only valid for $xneq 2$, so you are not allowed to put $x=2$ into the resulting simplified expression. $f(2)$ is still not defined.
In other words, it is not true that “$f(x)=x+3$”. What is true is that “$f(x)=x+3$ provided that $xneq 2$”.
It is critical to retain any provisos you implicitly introduce when simplifying. To fail to do this is sloppy and result in erroneous conclusions.
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
The simplification is only valid for $xneq 2$, so you are not allowed to put $x=2$ into the resulting simplified expression. $f(2)$ is still not defined.
In other words, it is not true that “$f(x)=x+3$”. What is true is that “$f(x)=x+3$ provided that $xneq 2$”.
It is critical to retain any provisos you implicitly introduce when simplifying. To fail to do this is sloppy and result in erroneous conclusions.
The simplification is only valid for $xneq 2$, so you are not allowed to put $x=2$ into the resulting simplified expression. $f(2)$ is still not defined.
In other words, it is not true that “$f(x)=x+3$”. What is true is that “$f(x)=x+3$ provided that $xneq 2$”.
It is critical to retain any provisos you implicitly introduce when simplifying. To fail to do this is sloppy and result in erroneous conclusions.
answered Nov 29 at 12:29
MPW
29.7k11956
29.7k11956
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
They do agree. But remember that $frac{x^2+x-6}{x-2}$ is not defined at $x = 2$, so technically neither is the $x+3$ you get from simplifying it. Check any other value for $x$, and you will see that they agree.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
They do agree. But remember that $frac{x^2+x-6}{x-2}$ is not defined at $x = 2$, so technically neither is the $x+3$ you get from simplifying it. Check any other value for $x$, and you will see that they agree.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
They do agree. But remember that $frac{x^2+x-6}{x-2}$ is not defined at $x = 2$, so technically neither is the $x+3$ you get from simplifying it. Check any other value for $x$, and you will see that they agree.
They do agree. But remember that $frac{x^2+x-6}{x-2}$ is not defined at $x = 2$, so technically neither is the $x+3$ you get from simplifying it. Check any other value for $x$, and you will see that they agree.
answered Nov 29 at 12:30
Arthur
109k7103186
109k7103186
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Note, that when a function is defined, it's not only about a formula but also about its domain.
For the function given
$$f(x) = frac {x^2 + x - 6}{x - 2}$$
if it is to be expressed in that way, it must clearly be $xneq 2$ and thus its domain is $D_f = mathbb R setminus {2}$. This means, that even after the simplification, the value $x=2$ does not belong to the domain of the given function and thus cannot be substituted in.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Note, that when a function is defined, it's not only about a formula but also about its domain.
For the function given
$$f(x) = frac {x^2 + x - 6}{x - 2}$$
if it is to be expressed in that way, it must clearly be $xneq 2$ and thus its domain is $D_f = mathbb R setminus {2}$. This means, that even after the simplification, the value $x=2$ does not belong to the domain of the given function and thus cannot be substituted in.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Note, that when a function is defined, it's not only about a formula but also about its domain.
For the function given
$$f(x) = frac {x^2 + x - 6}{x - 2}$$
if it is to be expressed in that way, it must clearly be $xneq 2$ and thus its domain is $D_f = mathbb R setminus {2}$. This means, that even after the simplification, the value $x=2$ does not belong to the domain of the given function and thus cannot be substituted in.
Note, that when a function is defined, it's not only about a formula but also about its domain.
For the function given
$$f(x) = frac {x^2 + x - 6}{x - 2}$$
if it is to be expressed in that way, it must clearly be $xneq 2$ and thus its domain is $D_f = mathbb R setminus {2}$. This means, that even after the simplification, the value $x=2$ does not belong to the domain of the given function and thus cannot be substituted in.
answered Nov 29 at 12:30
Rebellos
12.9k21042
12.9k21042
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
This is known as a removable discontinuity. If you check the graph, you would see that the two functions produce the same output at every point except $x = 2$ where the original function is undefined. By simplifying, you removed the discontinuity at that point.
Take this as another example:
$$f_1(x) = frac{x(x+1)}{x+1} quad f_2(x) = x$$
At first, it might seem the two functions are equivalent. Yet, you have to notice $f_2(x)$ is defined for all $x in mathbb{R}$ whereas $f_1(x)$ is defined for $x neq -1$, so the two functions aren't the "same" as their domains differ. They are equivalent at every other point except $x = -1$, where the first function is undefined. (You can think of it as a gap in $f_1(x)$. Otherwise, the graphs look exactly the same.) The exact same idea applies to your example.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
This is known as a removable discontinuity. If you check the graph, you would see that the two functions produce the same output at every point except $x = 2$ where the original function is undefined. By simplifying, you removed the discontinuity at that point.
Take this as another example:
$$f_1(x) = frac{x(x+1)}{x+1} quad f_2(x) = x$$
At first, it might seem the two functions are equivalent. Yet, you have to notice $f_2(x)$ is defined for all $x in mathbb{R}$ whereas $f_1(x)$ is defined for $x neq -1$, so the two functions aren't the "same" as their domains differ. They are equivalent at every other point except $x = -1$, where the first function is undefined. (You can think of it as a gap in $f_1(x)$. Otherwise, the graphs look exactly the same.) The exact same idea applies to your example.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
This is known as a removable discontinuity. If you check the graph, you would see that the two functions produce the same output at every point except $x = 2$ where the original function is undefined. By simplifying, you removed the discontinuity at that point.
Take this as another example:
$$f_1(x) = frac{x(x+1)}{x+1} quad f_2(x) = x$$
At first, it might seem the two functions are equivalent. Yet, you have to notice $f_2(x)$ is defined for all $x in mathbb{R}$ whereas $f_1(x)$ is defined for $x neq -1$, so the two functions aren't the "same" as their domains differ. They are equivalent at every other point except $x = -1$, where the first function is undefined. (You can think of it as a gap in $f_1(x)$. Otherwise, the graphs look exactly the same.) The exact same idea applies to your example.
This is known as a removable discontinuity. If you check the graph, you would see that the two functions produce the same output at every point except $x = 2$ where the original function is undefined. By simplifying, you removed the discontinuity at that point.
Take this as another example:
$$f_1(x) = frac{x(x+1)}{x+1} quad f_2(x) = x$$
At first, it might seem the two functions are equivalent. Yet, you have to notice $f_2(x)$ is defined for all $x in mathbb{R}$ whereas $f_1(x)$ is defined for $x neq -1$, so the two functions aren't the "same" as their domains differ. They are equivalent at every other point except $x = -1$, where the first function is undefined. (You can think of it as a gap in $f_1(x)$. Otherwise, the graphs look exactly the same.) The exact same idea applies to your example.
edited Nov 29 at 12:38
answered Nov 29 at 12:33
KM101
3,376417
3,376417
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Surely not because you are manipulating the definition of continuity. For example$$f(x)=begin{cases}1quad,quad xne 0end{cases}\g(x)=1$$ are clearly different. One is continuous on $Bbb R$ and one is not but we have $$f(x)={xover x}ne 1=g(x)$$You can see the difference in the illustration of the both function. $f(x)$ contains a gap in $x=0$ while $g(x)$ doesn't.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Surely not because you are manipulating the definition of continuity. For example$$f(x)=begin{cases}1quad,quad xne 0end{cases}\g(x)=1$$ are clearly different. One is continuous on $Bbb R$ and one is not but we have $$f(x)={xover x}ne 1=g(x)$$You can see the difference in the illustration of the both function. $f(x)$ contains a gap in $x=0$ while $g(x)$ doesn't.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Surely not because you are manipulating the definition of continuity. For example$$f(x)=begin{cases}1quad,quad xne 0end{cases}\g(x)=1$$ are clearly different. One is continuous on $Bbb R$ and one is not but we have $$f(x)={xover x}ne 1=g(x)$$You can see the difference in the illustration of the both function. $f(x)$ contains a gap in $x=0$ while $g(x)$ doesn't.
Surely not because you are manipulating the definition of continuity. For example$$f(x)=begin{cases}1quad,quad xne 0end{cases}\g(x)=1$$ are clearly different. One is continuous on $Bbb R$ and one is not but we have $$f(x)={xover x}ne 1=g(x)$$You can see the difference in the illustration of the both function. $f(x)$ contains a gap in $x=0$ while $g(x)$ doesn't.
answered Nov 29 at 12:32
Mostafa Ayaz
13.3k3836
13.3k3836
add a comment |
add a comment |
2
Related: Why aren't the functions $f(x) = frac{x-1}{x-1}$ and $f(x) = 1$ the same?
– StackTD
Nov 29 at 12:47
See also: Why can we resolve indeterminate forms?
– StackTD
Nov 29 at 12:48