Difference between revisions of "Talk:Graph of a function"

(Reply)
(Reply)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
:To clarify, what I was saying is that the graphs are not accurate because they are not graphs, they are approximations. Take a look at the 2nd "graph". It says,
 
:To clarify, what I was saying is that the graphs are not accurate because they are not graphs, they are approximations. Take a look at the 2nd "graph". It says,
''Likewise, a sign analysis on the intervals (-3/2,1) and (1,∞) allows the graph to be drawn as a smooth curve curve through the zeros using this information as a guideline''
+
::''Likewise, a sign analysis on the intervals (-3/2,1) and (1,∞) allows the graph to be drawn as a smooth curve curve through the zeros using this information as a guideline''
Notice how this does not mention anything about drawing a '''graph''' but only describes a way to approximate one. With an actual graph, you can get the value of each point, but with these, you get different values depending on what you draw.[[User:Myself|Myself]] 19:41, 13 August 2006 (EDT)
+
:Notice how this does not mention anything about drawing a '''graph''' but only describes a way to approximate one. With an actual graph, you can get the value of each point, but with these, you get different values depending on what you draw.[[User:Myself|Myself]] 19:41, 13 August 2006 (EDT)
  
 
== Using ''we'' in mathematical writing ==
 
== Using ''we'' in mathematical writing ==
  
 
It's ok to use the first person "we" in mathematical writing (this isn't english class :P ).  Here are some references: [http://www.math.ups.edu/~bryans/Current/PDF/MTHWRT97.PDF here] and [http://www.stat.ualberta.ca/~wiens/purdue1_write.pdf here].  You can just leave the page how it is for now.  --[[User:Joml88|Joe]] 11:27, 13 August 2006 (EDT)
 
It's ok to use the first person "we" in mathematical writing (this isn't english class :P ).  Here are some references: [http://www.math.ups.edu/~bryans/Current/PDF/MTHWRT97.PDF here] and [http://www.stat.ualberta.ca/~wiens/purdue1_write.pdf here].  You can just leave the page how it is for now.  --[[User:Joml88|Joe]] 11:27, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

Revision as of 18:42, 13 August 2006

I don't think this is a very clear explanation of graphing polynomials. I think the general idea of a graph should be shown instead; explaining what a graph is (representation of f(x) vs. x), instead of having a tutorial of graphing polynomials, since the graphs drawn by these tutorials won't be really accurate anyways. What does everyone else think? Myself 01:23, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

Reply

How would you draw more accurate graphs? How accurate do the graphs need to be? What is the purpose of drawing a graph? Certainly we can't use graphs as evidence in a rigorous proof. Graphs provide a visual way to look at functions and allow for conjectures about them as one use, right? I don't see why we should take out the tutorial on graphing. Certainly please add any additional info you think is pertinent (like f(x) vs. x).

I just don't see how useful knowing what a graph is if you can't draw one. --Joe 11:07, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

To clarify, what I was saying is that the graphs are not accurate because they are not graphs, they are approximations. Take a look at the 2nd "graph". It says,
Likewise, a sign analysis on the intervals (-3/2,1) and (1,∞) allows the graph to be drawn as a smooth curve curve through the zeros using this information as a guideline
Notice how this does not mention anything about drawing a graph but only describes a way to approximate one. With an actual graph, you can get the value of each point, but with these, you get different values depending on what you draw.Myself 19:41, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

Using we in mathematical writing

It's ok to use the first person "we" in mathematical writing (this isn't english class :P ). Here are some references: here and here. You can just leave the page how it is for now. --Joe 11:27, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

Invalid username
Login to AoPS