At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
(gf) (x) = (x^2+1)(2x-3)
sub x=2 so 5(1)=5
put x=2 gives. 7
(gf)(2) = 5 other guy doesnt know what hes on botu lol
so its 2(x²+1)-3 => 2x²+2-3 ==>(2x²-1) ===>(2x²-1)(2) =====>(4x²-2)
elecengineer states that g(f(x)) is simply the producy g(x).f(x), which is incorrect. The composition of two functions g(f(x)) is as stated by dipankarstudy. ghhosst seems to be substituting incorrectly. As he states, after simplifying, g(f(x)) = 2x^2 - 1. Putting x = 2, we get 2(2)^2 - 1 = (2 times 4) - 1 = 7 as derived above by dipankarstudy
lols whatever guyc newb . I am doind second year engineering noob, i am current on 100% for vector calculus and complex analysis, but you can think what you want
if they wanted the compositions of function then they would have written g (f(x)) , IN THAT FORM! when someone writes f*g , they have even included the asterick, which denotes multiplication, so if you want to be 100% pedantic ( which I am ) , the asker wants the product of the functions evaluated at 2
yes, I have seen some people use (g o f ) (x) to represent g(f(x)) , but in this case the asterick was used, suggest a product of functions
Yes, I see what you mean. It could be that the original poster typed the question slightly differently, thinking that g*f(2) means the same as g(f(2)). Apologies, I didn't mean to be rude.