The Student Room Group

Modulus function

Lets say you have y = -|3x - 1|

when working out where it cuts the axis, particularly the x-coordinate you can do the following

when y = 0, 3x - 1 = 0 therefore x = 1/3

but when you have y = 2|x| + 1 and you are trying to work out the x-coordinate

when y = 0, 2|x| + 1 = 0 therefore |x| = -0.5 hence no x value (but why?)

Why is it that the modulus sign essentially 'disappears' for the first part above and not the second part?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Inevitable
Lets say you have y = -|3x - 1|

when working out where it cuts the axis, particularly the x-coordinate you can do the following

when y = 0, 3x - 1 = 0 therefore x = 1/3

but when you have y = 2|x| - 1 and you are trying to work out the x-coordinate

when y = 0, 2|x| - 1 = 0 therefore |x| = -0.5

Why is it that the modulus sign essentially 'disappears' for the first part above and not the second part?


If |function| = 0, then, clearly function = 0

That is why it "disappears" in the first one
Original post by Inevitable
..


please don't PM - give people a chance to answer the post
Reply 3
Original post by TenOfThem
If |function| = 0, then, clearly function = 0

That is why it "disappears" in the first one


Why is it that the modulus sign essentially 'disappears' for the first function and not the second function written above? This is elementary, but I'm not thinking right. In the first case, is it essentially the same as -3x = 0, therefore dividing by -3 giving x = 0 (essentially doing the same above, dividing by -1 and the modulus - if that even makes sense?)

(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Inevitable
This is elementary, but I'm not thinking right. So it's essentially the same as -3x = 0, therefore x = 0 (essentially doing the same above, dividing by -1 and the modulus - if that even makes sense?)


Well |0| = 0

|nothing else| can equal 0
Original post by Inevitable
Lets say you have y = -|3x - 1|

when working out where it cuts the axis, particularly the x-coordinate you can do the following

when y = 0, 3x - 1 = 0 therefore x = 1/3

but when you have y = 2|x| - 1 and you are trying to work out the x-coordinate

when y = 0, 2|x| - 1 = 0 therefore |x| = -0.5 hence no x value (but why?)

Why is it that the modulus sign essentially 'disappears' for the first part above and not the second part?


This line is not correct

2|x| -1 = 0
2|x|=1
|x|=0.5
Reply 6
Original post by cuckoo99
This line is not correct

2|x| -1 = 0
2|x|=1
|x|=0.5



Edited, it's meant to be 2|x| + 1 = 0.
Original post by Inevitable
Edited, it's meant to be 2|x| + 1 = 0.


|x| cant equal negative values... the range for the function will be f(x)>0
Original post by Inevitable
Edited, it's meant to be 2|x| + 1 = 0.


that does not touch the x-axis
Original post by Inevitable
Lets say you have y = -|3x - 1|

when working out where it cuts the axis, particularly the x-coordinate you can do the following

when y = 0, 3x - 1 = 0 therefore x = 1/3

but when you have y = 2|x| + 1 and you are trying to work out the x-coordinate

when y = 0, 2|x| + 1 = 0 therefore |x| = -0.5 hence no x value (but why?)

Why is it that the modulus sign essentially 'disappears' for the first part above and not the second part?


So, let's work through the two examples.

Example 1:

y = -|3x-1| To find where y = 0.

Now, with all questions that use the modulus function, it's best if we first sketch the graph.

Okay, in this case, there is only a single solution.
So:

Spoiler



Example 2:

y = 2|x| +1 To find where y = 0.

Again, the best place to start is by sketching the graph. Here, we easily see that 2|x| +1 never equals 0, by why not?

Well, let's work through it:

Spoiler



Both examples you provided were a little dull. So, to make things interesting:

Example 3:
Looking back at example 1, let's use y = -|3x-1|, but this time to find where y = -5.

So, let's sketch the graph. We can now see there are two solutions! Let's do the maths:

Spoiler

Reply 10
Firstly, with y = -|3x - 1|, the modulus does not disappear it is simply a transformation. Therefore, you solve to find your x and y intersects, and then transform your f(x) to |f(x)|. This means only anything below your negative y axis is reflected onto your positive y axis.

Secondly, y = 2|x| + 1

This means that you have f(|x|) rather than |f(x)|. In this case you have positive or negative values of y for the positive values of x, however, this is reflected along the y axis so that your negative values of x are an exact mirror of the positive ones.

let y=0 :
0=2x +1
2x=-1
x=-1/2

Now when you draw this function, disregard the negative x axis and reflect everything you have on the positive side onto the negative.

PROOF:
let x=2 : y=2|2|+1=5
let x=-2 : y=2|-2| +1=5
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 11
Original post by ExcitinglyMundane
So, let's work through the two examples.

Example 1:

y = -|3x-1| To find where y = 0.

Now, with all questions that use the modulus function, it's best if we first sketch the graph.

Okay, in this case, there is only a single solution.
So:

Spoiler



Example 2:

y = 2|x| +1 To find where y = 0.

Again, the best place to start is by sketching the graph. Here, we easily see that 2|x| +1 never equals 0, by why not?

Well, let's work through it:

Spoiler



Both examples you provided were a little dull. So, to make things interesting:

Example 3:
Looking back at example 1, let's use y = -|3x-1|, but this time to find where y = -5.

So, let's sketch the graph. We can now see there are two solutions! Let's do the maths:

Spoiler


Modulus is a transformation and therefore we must first establish f(x) just like we would do with any other function, meaning that both the questions are possible.
Original post by S_L_J
Firstly, with Now when you draw this function, disregard the negative x axis and reflect everything you have on the positive side onto the negative.

PROOF:
let x=2 : y=2|2|+1=5
let x=-2 : y=2|-2| +1=5


This is incorrect. Take the similar function y = 2|x|-5

x = 2 : y = 2|2| - 5 = -1
x = -2 : y = 2|-2| - 5 = -1

You can't just disregard the negative x-axis with f(|x|).
Reply 13
Original post by ExcitinglyMundane
This is incorrect. Take the similar function y = 2|x|-5

x = 2 : y = 2|2| - 5 = -1
x = -2 : y = 2|-2| - 5 = -1

You can't just disregard the negative x-axis with f(|x|).

Yes so your negative value of x give you the same answers as your positive values. It is a mirror image along the y axis. Have a go at drawing the original y=2x-5, and then on another graph do what you just did above for all your x values.
Reply 14
Original post by ExcitinglyMundane
This is incorrect. Take the similar function y = 2|x|-5

x = 2 : y = 2|2| - 5 = -1
x = -2 : y = 2|-2| - 5 = -1

You can't just disregard the negative x-axis with f(|x|).

And besides, if you read what i had written correctly rather than taking a single quote into isolation, you will find that i said it is replaced with a mirror of the positive x axis.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by S_L_J
And besides, if you read what i had written correctly rather than taking a single quote into isolation, you will find that i said it is replaced with a mirror of the positive x axis.


My apologies, I was reading your post having just woken and had my axis confused!

Just be careful. Your transformation argument is only valid when talking about plotting y=g(x)y=g(x). It is invalid when plotting r=g(θ)r=g(\theta), and makes no sense if not plotting a graph!

I find it is much better to consider the modulus function as representing a magnitude.

Quick Reply

Latest