| Author |
Message |
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 13 Jul 2008 18:38:36 IST
|
|
|
(1) if f(x2+x+3)+2f(x2-3x+5) = 6x2-10x+17,
then find the value of f(85).
|
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 13 Jul 2008 19:44:47 IST
|
|
|
Not so hard actually.
You can easily prove by comparison of coeffs on both sides that deg f(x) = 1.
So f(x) = ax+b

This gives a = 2 and b = -3
Hence f(x) = 2x-3 which gives 
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 9 points
(with 1 
in 3 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 13 Jul 2008 21:24:07 IST
|
|
|
quite easy. i guess no use solving it whole as bhatt sir has done it already. just compare coefficieents of x2 and the constant terms and you'll get the answer. f(85)= 167
|
Alcohol and Calculus -- DON'T MIX -- Please don't Drink and Derive!!!
A committee is a group of people who individually can do nothing but together can decide that nothing can be done.
MUNNA BHAI: Circuit, bole toh yeh Ford kya hai?
CIRCUIT: Bhai, gaadi hai.
MUNNA BHAI: Toh phir, yeh Oxford kya hai?
CIRCUIT: Bole toh, simple hai bhai, Ox mane Bael, Ford mane gaadi. Oxford bole toh Baelgaadi. |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 15 Jul 2008 09:58:51 IST
|
|
|
how can you say that f(x) is of degree 1
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 15 Jul 2008 12:33:59 IST
|
|
|
is it known that f(x) isactually a polynomial?
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 15 Jul 2008 12:36:37 IST
|
|
|
actually no, but almost any function has a Taylor expansion
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 15 Jul 2008 12:41:40 IST
|
|
|
but taylor' expansion only approximates a smooth function by a polynomial in the close proximity of a point.. in this particular case we have no idea at all
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 15 Jul 2008 13:17:23 IST
|
|
|
Yeah, got to agree with you. But, the students sometimes neglect to mention everything relevant to the problem. Sometimes we clarify whether our assumption was what was meant. Otherwise, if we are convinced that our assumption is right, we just go ahead.
One clue here is that this is not a functional equation. He appears to have only a single valued function in mind. So that was the motivation for my assuming a polynomial.
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
|
|