- anonymous

what's it called exactly when you square or cube a function not a root because that'd be the opposite but...?

- jamiebookeater

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

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.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions

- amistre64

its called 'squaring or cubing' a function

- anonymous

oh ahahah okay thought there was more to it

- anonymous

got time for another question?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

## More answers

- amistre64

AN HOUR OR SO

- amistre64

nothing like a caap lock to set the mood lol

- anonymous

okay perfect, ok first of all do you see the graph right before "Forced Vibrations with damping?" on this webite http://www.ltcconline.net/greenl/courses/204/appsHigherOrder/forcedVibrations.htm

- amistre64

yes, the sin in a cone

- anonymous

yes, okay I have a similar problem like the same idea basically but these are the points and i have to find the equation: (-.75, 0) ..(.-5, -.7906)..(-.25, -.8724)..(0,0)..(.25, .90461)... (.5, .94868)...(.75,0)...(1, -1.039)..(1.25, -1.088) ..(1.5,0) ..(1.75, 1.1915) ..(2, 1.2471) and (2.25,0)

- amistre64

yeah, i remember those :) dampened waves is not my cup o tea, nor is the differentials yet. gonna have to ask someone smarter

- amistre64

pretty much you hav to find the peaks and valleys to draw the 'cone' from and determine its linear equation to help out

- anonymous

hmm okay, well are you good at natural log functions like ln(x) stuff?

- amistre64

im adequate with log functions

- anonymous

ok so f(x)=(x)/ln(x) basically how does each algebraic piece, so the only algebra in this is the numerator of x on the top, affect each part of its graph so when x<0, 00

- amistre64

this is pretty much a graph with the slope of \({1\over ln(x)}\)

- anonymous

so for example when x<0 it looks more like the x part because...type of thing

- anonymous

right so its the inverse of ln(x)?

- amistre64

not the inverse; that would be the graph of 'e'; its the 'flipped over the xaxis' graph of ln(x)

- anonymous

oh okay, so how do i explain this, so first when x<0 it acts like the ln(x) function because all y values still come out to be ERROR/undefined, right? and when 0

- amistre64

we have a vertical asymptote at x=0 becasue the ln(x) function has no value for x=0 and below

- anonymous

we have a vertical asymptote at x=0 becasue the ln(x) function has no value for x=0 and below....that is why when x<0 is acts like ln(x)?

- amistre64

it acts like 1/ln(x) for small values of x becasue that part takes control

- amistre64

for large values of x; 1/ln(x) plaays less part in it

- anonymous

when you say takes control what specifically do you mean

- amistre64

same thing you stated really; the control of the function get governed by the part that becomes dominate for its corresponding value of x

- anonymous

oh you mean the y values are bigger is that what you mean by dominate/take over?

- anonymous

when you say it takes control for small values of x you mean negative x values?

- amistre64

i mean lose to 0

- amistre64

err.. close to 1; since ln(1) = 0

- anonymous

so wait...When 0

- amistre64

gets closer and closer to infinity

- anonymous

when I use my calculator from .1 to .9 are all negative numbers so that can't be right

- anonymous

:/

- amistre64

anything less than 1 is gonna be a negative # i think

- anonymous

right so its not approaching infinity..its approaching negative infinity right?

- amistre64

as it approaches 1 from the right it goes thru the roof; from the left it goes thru the floor; to say infinity just tends to imply that its going in either direction really

- amistre64

infinity is infinity; if your on the negative side, then yeah, its -inf ...

- anonymous

When 0

- amistre64

correct

- anonymous

and then for larger values of x it looks more like ln(x) than 1/ln(x) when 0

- amistre64

no; stilll 1/ln(x) just on the + side

- amistre64

err.. i gotta learn to read better

- amistre64

for larger values of x; we get less and less out of it

- anonymous

what do you mean

- amistre64

1/ln(1,000,000,000) = .04825....
1/ln(1,000,000,000,000) = .03619.....

- anonymous

you are taking a fraction of a larger number not a smaller so the difference is not as big?

- amistre64

something like that....
100(.1) = 10
100(.01) = 1
so it still has control over it to an extent but the function still grows to infinity over the long haul

- anonymous

and finally when x>0 it looks more like the ln(x) part because..hm let me look..

- anonymous

as x approaches infinity..hm

- anonymous

:/

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.