The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Problem with transformations
Replies: 5   Last Post: Nov 17, 2012 1:20 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Clyde Greeno @ MALEI

Posts: 220
Registered: 9/13/10
Re: Problem with transformations
Posted: Nov 16, 2012 11:32 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Apart from Larson's apparent fetish with useless equations ...

This is one of those times when the most effective approach is to NOT try to
*tell* anything, until the students have an under-standing of what you are
talking about. Let them graph a few cases from the (x-h)^2 family ... the
a(x-h)^2 family ... the (x-h)^2+k family .... and the a(x-h)^2+k family ...
and THEN talk about the whats, whys, and whethers (or not the curves reach
certain values).

- --------------------------------------------------
From: "Peter Duveen" <>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 6:38 PM
To: <>
Subject: Problem with transformations

> The text (Precalculus with limits: a graphing approach Larson, etc.) tells
> us as follows (p43):
> " can obtain the graph of g(x) = (x - 2)^2 by shifting the graph of
> f(x) = x^2 two units to the right, as shown in Figure 1.42 [AN ASSERTION].
> In this case, the functions g and f have the following relationship.
> g(x) = (x - 2)^2
> = f(x - 2) (right shift of two units)[AN ASSERTION]
> The following list summarizes vertical and horizontal shifts:" etc. etc.
> I feel the assertions are not self-evident, and the treatment is generally
> confusing.
> I would have treated this differently. I would have first attempted to
> establish a relationship between a function and another function which is
> the translation of the first so many spaces horizontally.
> The relationship is f(x) = g (x + c). That is, the two functions have the
> same value when the arguments of f and g differ by a particular constant.
> Assuming we know the form of f(x), what is the form of g(x)?
> We introduce the argument f(x - c), and want to see what happens to g,
> namely, f(x - c) = g[(x - c) + c]
> We thus arrive at the expression f(x - c) = g(x). We have now established
> the form of g(x) in terms of f(x), which we know. It is simply f(x - c),
> which is not the same as f(x). In other words, we have derived and
> demonstrated what the textbook merely asserts.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.