You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Dogenzaka
- Start date

REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |

- Status
- Not open for further replies.

- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006

- Messages
- 17,730

- Awards
- 4

Show all of the zeroes that lie between [-3, 3] for

f(x) = 2x^5 - 13x^3 + 2x - 5

Do I just plug in -3 and 3 into the (x) and solve or what...?

I'm really bad at functions...does anyone have a good place for advice on functions?

Thanks.

- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009

- Messages
- 4,190

- Age
- 31

- Location
- Looking for Someone to Watch Over Me

- Website
- www.facebook.com

~~~~~~

take your calculator.

put the equation in Y=.

hit 2nd -> Trace (which is Calc) and hit the "zero" option.

choose left bound a little left of every y=0 on the graph and right bound a little right of every 0. do this until you have them all.

i forget the real way for a problem like that. let me think a minute.

EDIT: Scratch that last statement (I forgot to count in fractions, silly me). You want to find the rational zeroes.

To find the possible rational zeros, you take the multiples of constant number (in this case 5) and divide them by the multiples of the leading coefficient (in this case 2)

Which would be +-1,+-5 divided by +-1,+-2

So, we've got:

+-1

+-1/2

+-5

+-5/2

*You always include both positive and negative options.

Since you are looking for all values of x between [-3,3] that make f(x) = 0, you can eliminate +-5

Plug in the other six and whichever one(s) equal zero is (are) your answer(s)

To find the possible rational zeros, you take the multiples of constant number (in this case 5) and divide them by the multiples of the leading coefficient (in this case 2)

Which would be +-1,+-5 divided by +-1,+-2

So, we've got:

+-1

+-1/2

+-5

+-5/2

*You always include both positive and negative options.

Since you are looking for all values of x between [-3,3] that make f(x) = 0, you can eliminate +-5

Plug in the other six and whichever one(s) equal zero is (are) your answer(s)

Last edited:

Problem is that none of those values result in f(x) = 0.

To find the possible rational zeros, you take the multiples of constant number (in this case 5) and divide them by the multiples of the leading coefficient (in this case 2)

Which would be +-1,+-5 divided by +-1,+-2

So, we've got:

+-1

+-1/2

+-5

+-5/2

*You always include both positive and negative options.

Since you are looking for all values of x between [-3,3] that make f(x) = 0, you can eliminate +-5

Plug in the other six and whichever one(s) equal zero is (are) your answer(s)

Dogen, you copied the formula correctly, right?

- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006

- Messages
- 17,730

- Awards
- 4

To find the possible rational zeros, you take the multiples of constant number (in this case 5) and divide them by the multiples of the leading coefficient (in this case 2)

Which would be +-1,+-5 divided by +-1,+-2

Err....so you're saying if I ever want to find the "rational zero" of a function, I do that?

Well why did you choose only one of those terms and how did you choose that term to start your work with?

I'm assuming you chose 2x^5...but why that one? And why would that one lead me to rational zeros?

BTW maybe the problem is wrong, I dunno, but that's what I copied lol.

According to the paper, yeah.

Err....so you're saying if I ever want to find the "rational zero" of a function, I do that?

Well why did you choose only one of those terms and how did you choose that term to start your work with?

I'm assuming you chose 2x^5...but why that one? And why would that one lead me to rational zeros?

BTW maybe the problem is wrong, I dunno, but that's what I copied lol.

Well, I know it's a process for finding zeros, but I could be off somewhere, lol.

Anyway, you take the multiples of the Constant (the number that doesn't have a letter attached to it) and divide each of them by each multiple of the Leading Coefficient (the number attached to the letter with the higher power). If it helps to visualize it like this, take the multiples of the number on the far right end and divide them by the multiples of the number on the far left end. So, let's say the Constant is 4 and the Leading Coefficient is 2.

Multiples of 4 = 1,2,4 (because 1 x 4 = 4; and 2 x 2 = 4, and there's no other way to multiply them and get four)

Multiples of 2 = 1,2

So you'd take 1/1 , 2/1 , 4/1 , 1/2 , 2/2, 4/2

And because you take both the positive and negative values, the possible rational zeros are:

+-1/2, +-1, +-2, +-4 (since 1/1 & 2/2 are the same, and 2/1 & 4/2 are the same, you only need to count them once)

The process should give you numbers that make f(x) = 0 , unless all possibilities are imaginary numbers. It seems odd that you'd get a problem with all imaginary solutions, but I guess it's not impossible (really unlikely though). Just make sure you plug in the same number both times for the positive and negative values.

- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006

- Messages
- 17,730

- Awards
- 4

Not if it's a practice problem set, and the only assignments that count for weighted average grades are actual exams >_>Is'nt this considered as a form of cheating.

And what if there are no terms in the function that are constants? What if every term has a variable such as x?

So you're saying, with that problem, you picked the 2 from 2x^5 because it's the Leading Coefficient (has the highest "power" of all the terms) and you picked the 5 from -5 because it's a Constant?

- Joined
- Jun 12, 2009

- Messages
- 1,086

- Awards
- 3

- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006

- Messages
- 17,730

- Awards
- 4

The problem is I hardly know factorization ;_; does anyone know a good source to learn about it?

- Joined
- Jun 12, 2009

- Messages
- 1,086

- Awards
- 3

I reckon one of the coefficients or signs in the equation is wrong on the paper. If you want help on less horrible functions I'd be happy to talk you through how factorisation usually works

- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009

- Messages
- 4,190

- Age
- 31

- Location
- Looking for Someone to Watch Over Me

- Website
- www.facebook.com

usually i don't have any problems with math but.....

we're finding limits using infinity and this is just an extension it.

i need to find the horizontal and vertical asymptotes for the graph of f (algebraically, not by looking at a graph):

f (x) = ln(1 + e^x)

i can't do the distributive property because it's a logarithm so that's not even what it means. i think i can find the vertical ones by setting it equal to zero, but i still don't know how to go bout finding the horizontal one.

EDIT: figured it out. there was no vertical asymptote which makes sense. the horizontal one is the one you find by setting it to zero.

we're finding limits using infinity and this is just an extension it.

i need to find the horizontal and vertical asymptotes for the graph of f (algebraically, not by looking at a graph):

f (x) = ln(1 + e^x)

i can't do the distributive property because it's a logarithm so that's not even what it means. i think i can find the vertical ones by setting it equal to zero, but i still don't know how to go bout finding the horizontal one.

EDIT: figured it out. there was no vertical asymptote which makes sense. the horizontal one is the one you find by setting it to zero.

Last edited:

Bombay High Court Official Website

I love Google. So fast, so easy.

Bombay High Court Official Website

I love Google. So fast, so easy.

Thank you now all i have to do is type up a page and 1/2 report than i can go play infamous woot^.^

- Status
- Not open for further replies.