• anonymous
When looking at a rational function, Jamal and Angie have two different thoughts. Jamal says that the function is defined at x = -3, x = -4, and x = 6. Angie says that the function is undefined at those x values. Describe a situation where Jamal is correct, and describe a situation where Angie is correct. Is it possible for a situation to exist that they are both correct? Justify your reasoning.
  • Stacey Warren - Expert
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
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.
  • katieb
I got my questions answered at in under 10 minutes. Go to now for free help!
  • myininaya
Hint for part of this: Think of a fraction. A fraction doesn't exist when its bottom is zero. like x+3 is zero when x=-3. The fraction 1/(x+3) does not exist at x=-3.
  • anonymous
Angie is correct if this were the case\[\frac{ 1 }{ (x+3)(x+4)(x-6) }\] because if any of those values were put it in, the denominator would be zero. Can't divide by can we? Jamal would be correct if \[(x+3) +(x-4) + (x-6)\] Both could be correct if this were the case: \[\frac{ (x+3)(x+4)(x-6) }{ (x+3)(x+4)(x-6) }\] because even though the bottom is zero, so is the top. 0/0 is still zero. So..maybe we can divide by zero after all.

Looking for something else?

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